Affected products: Oysters 100 count with Harvest Zone: V:20Katama Bay, Massachusetts and with harvest dates from August 1,2013 to September 9, 2013.

AARON'S INC: Briefing in Summary Judgment Motions Began in July---------------------------------------------------------------Briefing began in July 2013 on the motions for summary judgmentfiled by Aaron's, Inc. in a suit alleging it improperly classifiedstore general managers as exempt from the overtime provisions ofthe Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Aug. 2,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., filed with the UnitedStates District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Case No.:2:08-CV-01969-KOB-JEO) on October 22, 2008, plaintiffs allegedthat the Company improperly classified store general managers asexempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor StandardsAct ("FLSA").

The case was conditionally certified as an FLSA collective actionon January 25, 2010, and it now includes 227 individuals, nearlyall of whom terminated from the general manager position more thantwo years ago. Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtimecompensation and other damages.

On October 4, 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion forsummary judgment as to the claims of Kunstmann, the namedplaintiff. On January 23, 2013, the Court denied the Company'smotion to decertify the class. The Company has since filed twoadditional motions for summary judgment, including one that seekssummary judgment in the entirety on all class members' claims, oralternatively on matters that will reduce the size of the class orexposure arising from the class claims. Briefing on these motionsbegan in July 2013.

AARON'S INC: Ga. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations Now in Discovery---------------------------------------------------------------Discovery in the suit Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc., which ispending in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia (Atlanta Division), is expected to continueuntil April 2014, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The matter of Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filedin the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio,Eastern Division on October 27, 2011 and was transferred onFebruary 23, 2012 to the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) (Civil No.:1:12-CV-00563-AT).

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other non-exempt employeeswho worked in Company stores, alleges that the Company violatedthe FLSA when it automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees'time for meal breaks on days when plaintiffs allegedly did nottake their meal breaks.

Plaintiff claims he and other employees actually worked throughmeal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their mealbreaks and asked to perform work. As a result of the automaticdeduction, plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to accountfor all of his working hours when it calculated overtime, andconsequently underpaid him. Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaidovertime compensation and other damages for all similarly situatedemployees nationwide for the applicable time period.

On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an order granting conditionalcertification of a class consisting of all hourly store employeesfrom June 28, 2009 to the present. The class size is approximately1,788 opt-in plaintiffs, which is less than seven percent of thepotential class members. The parties are engaging in discovery.Discovery is expected to continue until April 2014.

AARON'S INC: Class Certified in Suit Over Rent-to-Own Contract--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the District of New Jerseycertified a class comprising of all persons who entered into arent-to-own contract with Aaron's Inc., according to the company'sAug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In Margaret Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed inthe Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Divisionon October 26, 2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself andothers similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable indamages to plaintiff and each class member because the Company'slease agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violatedcertain New Jersey state consumer statutes.

Plaintiff's complaint seeks treble damages under the New JerseyConsumer Fraud Act, and statutory penalty damages of $100 perviolation of all contracts issued in New Jersey, and also claimthat there are multiple violations per contract. The Companyremoved the lawsuit to the United States District Court for theDistrict of New Jersey on December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.:10-06317(JAP)(LHG)).

Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeksequitable relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter isclosed. On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprisingall persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with theCompany in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 throughMarch 31, 2011. The Company is currently evaluating its next step.

AARON'S INC: Certification Hearing in Privacy Suit Set for Sept.----------------------------------------------------------------A hearing on the motion for class certification in a suit againstAaron's Inc. over alleged privacy violation is tentatively set forSeptember 2013, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2013.

In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises,Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC,filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court,Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB),plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its independently ownedand operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way")knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of theElectronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud AbuseAct and sought certification of a putative nationwide class.Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a softwareprogram called "PC Rental Agent."

The District Court dismissed the Company from the lawsuit on March20, 2012. On September 14, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second amendedcomplaint against the Company and its franchisee Aspen Way,asserting claims for violation of the Electronic CommunicationsPrivacy Act and common law invasion of privacy by intrusion uponseclusion.

Plaintiffs also asserted certain vicarious liability claimsagainst the Company based on Aspen Way's alleged conduct. OnOctober 15, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss theamended complaint, and on February 27, 2013, plaintiffs filed amotion for leave of the Court to file a third amended complaintagainst the Company. On May 23, 2013, the Court grantedplaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint,which asserts the same claims against the Company as the secondamended complaint but also adds a request for injunction and namesadditional independently owned and operated Company franchisees asdefendants.

Plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company hasmoved to dismiss that complaint on substantially the same groundsas it sought to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Thatmotion remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 1,2013, and the Company's response is due on August 2, 2013. Ahearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification istentatively set for September 2013. Plaintiffs seek monetarydamages as well as injunctive relief.

AARON'S INC: Motions to Junk "PC Rental" Suit Remain Pending------------------------------------------------------------The motions of Aaron's Inc. to dismiss and strike certain claimsarising out of its alleged use of PC Rental Agent software remainpending, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended June 30, 2013.

Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC RentalAgent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief anddamages in connection with the allegations of the complaint.

Plaintiffs are also seeking certification of a putative Californiaclass. Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as in theByrd litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed thismatter to federal Court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed amotion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrdlitigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, anda motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Courtsubsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss andstrike certain allegations remain pending.

Mr. Fry was a customer service representative at the Defendant'scall center in Farmington, Missouri. He alleges that he and othersimilarly situated employees were required to perform work dutiesbefore and after their shifts without being paid, and that theDefendant improperly calculated compensation in other ways, likefailing to include non-discretionary bonus pay when determiningovertime compensation and requiring employees to round theirclock-in/clock-out times to the nearest quarter hour.

Mr. Fry brings the collective action for unpaid compensation underthe Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, etseq., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He hasmoves for conditional certification of this case as a collectiveaction under FLSA so that he may notify certain of defendant'spast and present employees of the action and provide them theopportunity to "opt in" as plaintiffs to this litigation.

The Court conditionally certified a class of all current andformer non-exempt employees of defendant Accent Marketing ServicesL.L.C. at its Farmington, Missouri call center who were requiredto perform tasks such as booting up and shutting down theircomputers and logging in and out of various programs without payduring their unpaid meal periods and before and after theirscheduled shifts, for a period of three years from the date of theCourt's Order.

The Court directed the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff'sattorneys with the names, employment dates, and last knownaddresses of all potential class members, and directed the partiesto file a joint proposed form of notice for the Court'sconsideration, consistent with the Order, within 20 days. If theparties cannot agree on a joint proposed form of notice after goodfaith efforts, then the parties must file their own proposed formsof notice, each with a brief memorandum setting out the areas ofdisagreement and support for their position, for the Court'sconsideration, ruled Judge Perry.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Memorandum andOrder is available at http://is.gd/0gGp1lfrom Leagle.com.

Ms. Hart, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide ClassAction Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, sought benefits from theAHP Settlement Trust. The Court must determine whether Ms. Harthas demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support her claimfor Matrix Compensation Benefits and, if so, whether she met herburden, of proving that her claim was not based, in whole or inpart, on any intentional material misrepresentation of fact.

Judge Bartle held that Ms. Hart has not met her burden of provingthat there is a reasonable medical basis for finding that she hadmoderate mitral regurgitation.

AMERIDOSE LLC: Two Steroid-Related Meningitis Victims Die in Tenn.------------------------------------------------------------------Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that onlyone new case of infection from a fungus-tainted spinal steroid hasbeen reported nationally in the past month, but two Tennesseevictims of the national outbreak have been identified for thefirst time in newly filed federal court cases.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported onSept. 5 that the one new case was reported in an Indiana patient,who has an infection at the site of the steroid injection.

That pushed the total number of cases since the outbreak was firstreported last October to 750 patients affected by the contaminatedsteroid shipped from a now-defunct Massachusetts drug compounder.

In Tennessee the number of cases remains at 153, with 15 deathsreported. That is second only to Michigan, with 264 patientsaffected and 19 deaths. Indiana has reported 91 patientsaffected, with 11 deaths.

Two of those Tennessee victims became known for the first time onSept. 5 with suits filed in U.S. District Courts in Nashville andBoston.

According to the 52-page complaint filed in Nashville,Elfrieda Wiley, 54, of Gallatin was referred in July 2012 to theSaint Thomas Outpatient Neurosurgical Center by a physician at theHowell Allen Clinic, part owner of the neurosurgical center.

She was injected in the spine with methylprednisolone acetate onJuly 31, Aug. 14 and Sept. 6 of last year.

On Oct. 15, she went to the emergency room and was diagnosed withfungal meningitis. She was then hospitalized for three weeks.

The suit states that although the neurosurgery center had shutdown voluntarily on Sept. 20, it wasn't until early October thatMrs. Wiley received a letter indicating the center wasinvestigating several cases of meningitis in patients who hadreceived injections.

"That letter was the first notice Mrs. Wiley ever receivedindicating she was at risk of contracting meningitis," thecomplaint states.

The suit names as defendants the neurosurgical center,Saint Thomas West Hospital and the Howell Allen Clinic, along withthe owners of the bankrupt company that produced the taintedsteroid and related companies, including a testing company thatwas hired to test samples of the drug for sterility.

The suit was filed on behalf of Mrs. Wiley and her husband, Elton,by Nashville attorneys George Nolan and William Leader.

The drugs were shipped all over the country by the New EnglandCompounding Center, which shut down and filed for bankruptcy latelast year. A federal judge has officially declared the firminsolvent.

The complaint charges the defendants with negligence, civilconspiracy and violations of the state product liability law.

It is the first to specify a civil conspiracy claim by chargingthat the Nashville neurosurgery center and its two key employees"acted in concert with NECC to accomplish the unlawful purpose ofcircumventing Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy patient safetyrequirements."

The second suit was filed on behalf of Wilma S. Carter ofCrossville, who contracted fungal meningitis after getting aspinal steroid treatment at the Specialty Surgery Center inCrossville.

According to the complaint, Ms. Carter became ill in early Octoberand was eventually hospitalized for treatment of fungalmeningitis. She later developed an abscess at the injection siteand was hospitalized again from Oct. 30 to Nov. 9.

The suit states that Ms. Carter was out of work for an extendedperiod ending on Jan. 7 of this year.

Defendants in that suit include Ameridose LLC, the sister companyto NECC, and the individual owners of the two companies. Itcharges them with negligence and engaging in deceptive trade andbusiness practices.

Additional lawsuits are likely in the next few weeks as victimsface a one-year deadline to file claims under the state healthcare and product liability laws.

ASSISTED LIVING: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $12 Million--------------------------------------------------------------Jason Oliva, writing for Senior Housing News, reports thatAssisted Living Concepts, Inc. and its former CEO have agreed topay $12 million in cash to settle a class action lawsuit allegingthe company's executives misled shareholders as to the operator'sfinancial footing and regulatory compliance, according to courtdocuments filed last week in Wisconsin.

Filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern Districtof Wisconsin on Sept. 6, the settlement agreement is awaitingpreliminary court approval and would result in the dismissal ofthe litigation. Lead plaintiff the Pension Trust Fund forOperating Engineers called the $12 million settlement "fair,reasonable, and adequate" in the memorandum, adding that it marksa "substantial" recovery for the class.

The exact number of class members is not yet known, but isexpected to number in the hundreds of thousands, as there weremore than 10 million outstanding shares of ALC stock when thecompany was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Assisted LivingConcepts, formerly traded under the symbol ALC, was delisted afterbeing acquired by private equity firm TPG in a transaction thatclosed in July 2013.

The proposed settlement for the plaintiffs against defendants ALCand former CEO Laurie Bebo was reached after the lead plaintiffconducted an "extensive" investigation, including interviews ofmore than forty confidential witnesses and analysis of thousandsof documents concerning regulatory proceedings against ALC.

ALC shareholders filed the class action lawsuit against thecompany in August 2012, claiming that ALC issued false andmisleading statements regarding the company's financials and itscompliance with state regulatory departments. Both Bebo and ALChave unsuccessfully motioned to dismiss the lawsuit.

ALC previously settled two other lawsuits, including one involvingBebo which she brought against the company after being fired inMay 2012.

June filings with the Waukesha County Circuit Court indicate ALChad settled the suit with Bebo, according to the Milwaukee JournalSentinel, along with settling another shareholder suit inMilwaukee County, both with undisclosed terms.

ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Continues to Settle Fla. Overdraft MDL------------------------------------------------------------Associated Banc-Corp is continuing with the process to settle thesuit In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation MDL No. 2036,which is before the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended June 30, 2013.

A putative class action lawsuit, Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A.(the "Bank"), was filed in the United States District Court forthe Western District of Wisconsin in April 2010, alleging that theBank unfairly assessed and collected overdraft fees and seekingrestitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory, consequential andpunitive damages, and costs.

The case was subsequently consolidated into the Multi DistrictLitigation ("MDL"), In re: Checking Account Overdraft LitigationMDL No. 2036 in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida. A settlement agreement which requires paymentby the Bank of $13 million for a full and complete release of allclaims brought against the Bank received preliminary approval fromthe court on July 26, 2012.

By entering into such an agreement, the company has not admittedany liability with respect to the lawsuit. The settlement amountwas previously accrued for in the financial statements. In thesecond quarter of 2012, the Bank settled with an insurer for a$2.5 million contribution to the settlement amount and partialreimbursement of defense costs of up to $2.1 million.

On September 5, 2013, Astex announced that it had entered into adefinitive merger agreement under which Otsuka will commence atender offer to acquire the Company at a purchase price of $8.50per share in cash for a total transaction value of approximately$886 million. By facilitating the proposed acquisition forinadequate consideration and through a flawed process, each of theDefendants breached and aided the other Defendants' breaches oftheir fiduciary duties, Ms. West contends. Hence, she seeks toenjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate theProposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction isconsummated, recover damages resulting from the IndividualDefendants' violations of their fiduciary duties and from Otsuka.

Ms. West is a continuous stockholder of Astex.

Astex is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dublin,California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officersof the Company. Autumn Acquisition is a Delaware corporation anda wholly owned subsidiary of Otsuka, a Japanese joint stockcompany.

Motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff were filed by:Firefighters; Summit Capital Management, LLC; Armada Advisors,Inc.; and Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund. Summitfiled a notice of withdrawal on August 13, 2013, thereby removingitself from consideration for appointment as Lead Plaintiff.

District Judge Carl J. Barbier ruled that Plumbers and PipefittersNational Pension Fund's motion should be granted because Plumbersfits the requirements needed to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff.Armada Advising, Inc.'s and Firefighters Pension & Relief Fund ofthe City of New Orleans's motions were denied.

Accordingly, Judge Barbier appointed Plumbers and PipefittersNational Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff, and Robbins Geller Rudman& Downd LLP as lead counsel.

The Court directed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fundto file an Amended Class Action Complaint within 45 days of theentry of the order, and the Defendants to file an answer toPlumbers' complaint within 45 days of its filing.

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Brokers' Wage Class Action for $2.8-Mil.-----------------------------------------------------------------Bank of America Merrill Lynch has agreed to pay $2.8 million tosettle a class action that claimed the firm took too long to paywages to departing brokers.

The case involves almost 300 brokers in California who resigned inthe years following Merrill Lynch's purchase by Bank of America in2008. A former Merrill Lynch broker who left in 2010 initiatedthe class action to seek penalties for late payments. The claim,which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, asserted that Merrill Lynch's practice ofdisbursing payment commission wages at the next pay cycle violatedCalifornia labor laws, which require payment within 72 hours ofthe employee's last day.

"This is purely a penalty case," the plaintiffs' attorney,James Quadra -- jquadra@quadracoll.com -- of Quadra & Coll, says."California is very protective of its employees."

BofA Merrill Lynch denied any wrongdoing and argued that it had agood faith belief that its procedures were not in violation of thelaw, according to the settlement agreement.

The firm "has vigorously defended this matter on the grounds thatit had a good faith belief that commission payments were not duebefore the regularly scheduled payment times," the settlementread. "[They] argued that uncertainty over the applicable law canconstitute a good faith dispute, which defeats claims forpenalties."

A spokesperson for Bank of America declined to offer additionalcomment.

Since the case, Merrill Lynch established an official policy in2011 to pay its departing employees in California within 72 hoursof their last day.

The class includes a total of 275 former Merrill Lynch brokers inCalifornia who resigned between December 2, 2008 and December 31,2011.

The final settlement of $2,785,000, which was approved by JudgeClaudia Wilken on August 29th, represents 75% of the totalpenalties that could have been assessed, had the case gone tocourt. The amount, 25% of which will go to the plaintiff'sattorneys, provides for compensation of no more than $10,000 perbroker.

"We believe it's a fair settlement," Mr. Quadra says. "Seventy-five percent is a good return when you avoid any other risk."

In October 2012, Barnes & Noble revealed that it had discoveredtampering with the personal identification number pads used toprocess payment card transactions at 63 of its stores (11 PVLR1584, 10/29/12). The hackers used a technique known as "skimming"to collect customers' credit and debit card information, the courtsaid.

According to the plaintiffs, there was a six-week delay betweenthe time Barnes & Noble learned of the breach and when it publiclyannounced the breach. They also alleged that the company failedto directly notify its customers. In addition, they claimed thatthe company failed to follow security protocols and regulationsmaintained by the payment card industry.

Barnes & Noble moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to FederalRules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court,however, found it unnecessary to analyze the book retailer's12(b)(6) arguments.

Delayed Notification, Statutory Violations

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss for lack ofstanding after finding all of the alleged injuries insufficient tosupport standing.

It rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the delay or inadequacyof the breach notification increased the risk that they wouldsuffer injuries and therefore supported standing. "Merelyalleging an increased risk of identity theft or fraud isinsufficient to establish standing," the court said.

Allegations that statutes were breached, without any allegation ofactual damages resulting from the breach, were inadequate toestablish standing, the court said.

The alleged improper disclosure of the plaintiffs' personallyidentifiable information (PII) was insufficient to establishstanding because the plaintiffs failed to allege that theinformation was disclosed, the court said. For the same reason,their alleged loss of privacy did not convey standing.Mitigation Expenses, Fraudulent Charge

Nor did the plaintiffs' alleged time and expenses incurred tomitigate the risks of identity theft confer standing, the courtconcluded. They failed to allege expenses with specificity, andClapper held that such expenses are not actual injuries in theabsence of imminent harm, the court said.

An increased risk of identity theft is also inadequate to supportstanding, the court determined, noting that Clapper held thatspeculation of future harm is not an actual injury.

The plaintiffs did not allege an actual injury based on thedeprivation of the value of their PII, the court said."Plaintiffs do not allege their personal information was sold, nordo they allege the information could be sold by Plaintiffs forvalue," it said.

In addition, anxiety and emotional distress following a breach areinsufficient to confer standing, the court concluded, again notingthe lack of an imminent threat to their PII.

The court found unpersuasive the plaintiffs' argument that thediminished value of their products and services supported standingbecause they "have not pled that Barnes & Noble charged a higherprice for goods whether a customer pays with credit, andtherefore, that additional value is expected in the use of acredit card."

Finally, a fraudulent charge on one plaintiff's credit card wasinsufficient to confer standing because that plaintiff failed toplead that she suffered a monetary loss resulting from the chargeand failed to connect that charge to the breach, the court said.

Front side of the Monster Science Growing Spider with monster"spider eggs" packaging. The eggs are water-absorbing polymerballs that can grow to eight times their original size. Productssold by Target and Cracker Barrel do not have the "Spirit" name on

Front side of the Monster Science Growing Spider with monster"spider eggs" packaging. The eggs are water-absorbing polymerballs that can grow to eight times their original size. Productssold by Target and Cracker Barrel do not have the "Spirit" name on

Recall Summary

Name of product: Water-absorbing polymer balls

Hazard: The soft and colorful product can be mistaken by a childfor candy. When the marble-sized toy is ingested, it can expandinside a child's body and cause intestinal obstructions, resultingin severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be lifethreatening. The toys do not show up on an x-ray and need surgeryto be removed from the body.

Remedy: View DetailsRefund

Consumer Contact: Be Amazing! Toys toll-free at (877) 798-9795,from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or online athttp://www.beamazingtoys.comthen click on Safety Recall at the bottom of the page for more information.Recall Details

Units: About 26,500

Description: This recall involves Monster Science Growing Spidertoy sets, with model number 7280 for product sold at CrackerBarrel Old Country Stores and Spirit Halloween and model number7289 for product sold at Target. The sets contain marble-sizedpolymer ball "spider eggs" that can absorb from 300 to 800 timestheir weight in water and can grow up to eight times theiroriginal size. The sets consist of one polymer spider and three"spider eggs". The Be Amazing! Toys star logo and the wordsMonster Science Growing Spider, Ages 8+, Just drop in water, GrowGiant Spider Eggs and Eggs Grow Up to 8X Original Size are printedon the front of the packaging. The model number is on the bottomof the back of the packaging. The front and back of the packaginghave warnings not to use the toy without adult supervision.

Incidents/Injuries: None reported. CPSC is aware of one incidentwith a similar water absorbing polymer ball product in which an 8-month-old girl ingested the ball and it had to be surgicallyremoved.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately take this recalled toy awayfrom children and contact Be Amazing! Toys for a refund.

Sold at: Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores nationwide from August2011 to August 2013, Spirit Halloween stores nationwide fromAugust 2011 to November 2011 and from August 2012 to November2012, and Target stores nationwide September to November 2012 forbetween $3 and $5.

Importer: Be Amazing! Toys, of Salt Lake City

Manufactured in: China

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is stillinterested in receiving incident or injury reports that are eitherdirectly related to this product recall or involve a differenthazard with the same product. Please tell us about yourexperience with the product on SaferProducts.gov

CPSC is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risksof injury or death associated with the use of the thousands ofconsumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths,injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents costthe nation more than $900 billion annually. CPSC is committed toprotecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire,electrical, chemical or mechanical hazard. CPSC's work to ensurethe safety of consumer products -- such as toys, cribs, powertools, cigarette lighters and household chemicals -- contributedto a decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated withconsumer products over the past 30 years.

Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to apublicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or amandatory recall ordered by the Commission.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury goonline to http://www.SaferProducts.govor call CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054 for the hearingimpaired. Consumers can obtain recall information athttp://www.cpsc.govon Twitter @OnSafety or by subscribing to CPSC's free e-mail newsletters.

The women claim Body Central violated Illinois law by videotapingthem while they tried on clothes in the store's dressing room.

"Without any kind of notice to plaintiffs herein, defendantunlawfully video recorded plaintiffs, and the class they seek torepresent, while they were taking their clothes off in thechanging rooms provided by defendant," the complaint states.

"At no time did plaintiffs or members of the class give consent todefendant to record and/or view them in the changing rooms using avideo camera."

The class consists of all customers who were videotaped using theBody Central dressing rooms at the chain's Fairview Heights, Ill.outlet since 2008.

They seek an injunction and damages for unauthorized videorecording and live video transmission and intrusion.

BP PLC: Changes View on Oil Spill Class Action Settlement---------------------------------------------------------Frederick T. Kuykendall III, of counsel to Farrell & Patel, P.A.reports that BP has changed their view on the settlement, which ishighly unusual, says Rick Kuykendall, attorney in Alabama. BPbegan a campaign back in January to challenge many of theinterpretations the claims administrator had placed on a 1,400page agreement.

Procedurally, says Mr. Kuykendall, it's a complicated matter. BPhas attacked the judge's rulings in upholding the claimsadministrator on multiple occasions and they currently have a casepending in the fifth circuit court of appeals. The case has beenargued and is currently under submission, with a decision to comeat any time.

According to Mr. Kuykendall, in class actions, people whoimproperly object have the right to make an appeal. Here, therewere some appeals by the underlying judgment and by disgruntledplaintiffs. It is highly unusual that at the end of the process,BP would have a falling out. Usually, he says, they're joined atthe hip at this point to get the deal done.

As BP is dissatisfied with the manner in which the administratorhas implemented the settlement, BP has decided to jump on the backof the plaintiff objectors, says Kuykendall. He says BP'sposition is that the deal they negotiated was fair but no longeris under the interpretation of the administrator. BP is nowtrying to undo the deal it negotiated.

When looking at this whole thing in total, Mr. Kuykendall says theclaims administrator was dealing with hundreds of thousands ofclaims and overseeing an army of claims handlers, making thiswhole process very complicated.

The exclusions and opt-outs, which are the cases that were notincluded in the settlement, have just been brought back to NewOrleans, after a July review by a multi-district panel inPortland, Maine.

Mr. Kuykendall believes an opinion on this new twist will beforthcoming by the end of the year but notes that unless BPresolves this, this can go on for years.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey by several present and formerCablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iOvideo subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.

After three versions of the complaint were dismissed withoutprejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their thirdamended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Companyviolated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tyingthe sale of interactive services offered as part of iO televisionpackages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed byCablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Actby allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevisioncompatible set-top boxes.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney'sfees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. On September23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amendedcomplaint. On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued adecision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolizationclaim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related statecommon law claims to proceed. Cablevision's answer to the thirdamended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012. Discovery isproceeding. The Company believes that these claims are withoutmerit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unableto predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate arange of possible loss.

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: N.Y. Court Yet to Certify Consumer Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Motions for class certification and partial summary judgment inthe Cablevision Systems Corporation Consumer Litigation have beenfully briefed, and a decision by the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of New York is pending, according to thecompany's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage ofcertain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programmingfeeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networkswere unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.

On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement onnew affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, andcarriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuitswere subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customersseeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.

Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S.District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and aconsolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22,2011.

Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjustenrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatorydamages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012,the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying themotion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, butgranting it with regard to the remaining claims, which weredismissed.

On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amendedcomplaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. TheCompany's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012,plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. Both motionshave been fully briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending.

Further discovery, if any, has been deferred until after the Courtrules on the pending motions. The Company believes that thisclaim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuitsvigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuitsor reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Seeks to Junk N.Y. Securities Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------Cablevision Systems Corporation is seeking to dismiss thesecurities lawsuit Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation,et al. pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Districtof New York, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of New York againstCablevision and certain current and former officers, by aCablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class ofindividuals who purchased Cablevision common stock betweenFebruary 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011.

The complaint alleges that Cablevision and the individualdefendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Actby allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statementsregarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertisingcosts, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especiallyin the New York area.

The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violatedSection 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same allegedconduct. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys'fees, and equitable relief. On March 26, 2012, the Iron WorkersLocal No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fundsubmitted a joint application to serve as lead plaintiffs. TheCourt granted the application on April 13, 2012. On June 29,2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On October 11, 2012, the Court issued a ruling permitting thefiling of a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule.The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, and a decision bythe Court is pending. Oral argument on the motion is scheduledfor August 13, 2013. The Company believes that these claims arewithout merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of thislawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

CHOBANI: 89 Illnesses Related to Contaminated Yogurt Reported-------------------------------------------------------------Joe Cadotte, writing for MagicValley.com, reports that at least 89people have gotten sick from eating Chobani yogurt, which is undera voluntary recall, the FDA said on Sept. 9.

Some have described nausea and cramps after eating the yogurt,said spokeswoman Tamara Ward of the U.S. Food and DrugAdministration.

No cases have been confirmed.

The FDA is not investigating Chobani but is working with thecompany to hasten the recall, Ms. Ward said.

The yogurt giant sent orders to grocery stores throughout the U.S.to destroy 35 varieties of yogurt reported to have beencontaminated by a mold associated with dairy, fruits andvegetables.

On Sept. 5, company spokeswoman Amy Juaristi said 95 percent ofthe tainted product had been destroyed.

The affected yogurt cups have the code 16-012 and expiration datesSept. 11 to Oct. 7.

Public health officials said the moldy yogurt was not a publichealth threat, but a statement by the company last week read: "Themold can act as an opportunistic pathogen for those withcompromised immune systems."

In an email on Sept. 9, Chobani said: "We identified the source ofthe issue in the plant, and have taken corrective action designedto prevent this from happening again," said Ms. Juaristi in anemail.

The company has failed to release specifics about where and howthe outbreak occurred in its Twin Falls plant or how the problemwould be remedied to ensure it does not recur.

Greek Yogurt Recalled Over Quality Concerns

According to The Associated Press, Chobani is pulling some of itsGreek yogurt from supermarket shelves after hearing of "swellingor bloating" in cups. The company said it has investigated andfound a type of mold commonly found in dairy that may be to blame.

Chobani said the affected product came from its Idaho facility andrepresents less than 5 percent of its total production. Thecompany has been working with retailers to remove and replacecontainers with the code 16-012 and expiration dates Sept. 11 toOct. 7.

Chobani did not say how many of its cups or what varieties wereaffected. The effort was voluntary and it is not issuing a formalrecall. The New Berlin, N.Y.-based company did not specify whatcaused the problem.

A representative for Kroger, the nation's largest traditionalsupermarket operator, said Chobani issued a product withdrawal onAug. 30. "It was not a food safety issue," Kroger spokesman KeithDailey said in an email.

On Sept. 3, Chobani was responding to people who were complainingabout their yogurt cups on Twitter. One person described her cupas "unnervingly fizzy," another said the cups were like "yogurtsoup" and another said it tasted like "wine."

Yet another person said the strawberry flavor they bought tasted"really old."

Chobani, which says it uses only high-quality, naturalingredients, has grown rapidly since it was founded in 2005.

Greek yogurt in general has surged in popularity as well, withfans saying they prefer its thicker consistency and relativelyhigher protein content when compared with the sweeter yogurtvarieties that have long been sold in American supermarkets.

The private company had an estimated $244 million in revenue in2010, according to S&P Capital IQ.

Chobani says customers with the affected code dates should contactits customer service team at care@chobani.com to get replacementproducts.

CONAGRA FOODS: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Cooking Spray---------------------------------------------------------------Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports thatConAgra's sprayable butter is not the same thing as nonstickcooking sprays such as Pam, making its nonfat, no-calorie claimscontestable in court, a federal judge ruled in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Erin Allen sued ConAgra in March, claiming it uses"unrealistically" small serving sizes to understate the amount offat and calories in its Parkay Spray.

Conagra advertises the spray as having "0 fat" and "0 calories,"though one bottle contains 93 grams of fat and 832 calories, Allensaid in her class action.

The Food and Drug Administration allows companies to labelproducts as "fat-free" if they contain less than 0.5 grams of fatper serving, and "0 calories" if they have fewer than 5 caloriesper serving, according to Allen's complaint.

Parkay Spray lists its serving sizes as 0.2 grams, or one spray,for cooking, and 1.0 grams, or five sprays, for topping. Thiswould give an 8-oz, bottle 1,130 one-spray servings and 226 five-spray servings.

The problem, Allen claims, is that consumers do not use suchartificially small serving sizes, especially when it comes tobutter, so ConAgra's claims are false and misleading.

ConAgra which grosses $20 billion in annual sales, soughtdismissal, claiming the complaint is pre-empted by the Food, Drugand Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Nutrition Labeling and EducationAct (NLEA) of 1990. It claims it complies with those laws.

U.S. District Judge John Tigar ruled that the case boils down towhether Parkay Spray belongs in the "spray type" fat or oilcategory, or the "butter, margarine, oil, shortening" category.

ConAgra argued that Parkay Spray is not butter because it does notcontain milk or cream, under the FDCA definition.

Tigar, however, pointed out that serving sizes for imitation andsubstitute products must be the same as the foods for which theysubstitute.

"Imitation butter, which may contain neither milk nor cream,therefore belongs in the same reference amount category asbutter," Tigar ruled. "The court concludes that plaintiff hasadequately alleged that the serving size listed on Parkay Spraybottles is the wrong serving size."

Tigar found that because Allen is not trying to imposerequirements that differ from those under the FDCA, NLEA or FDAregulations, her claims are not pre-empted.

"The complaint alleges that Parkay Spray's labels and marketingare false and misleading because they advertise that Parkay Sprayis 'fat free' and 'calorie free' when it is not," Tigar wrote."Plaintiff's allegation that defendant's statements violate FDAregulation as written is necessary for her claims to avoid pre-emption, but not necessary for her to establish the underlyingstate law causes of action. The FDCA therefore does not precludeplaintiff from bringing those claims."

Tigar added that "plaintiff has adequately pled her fraudallegations, and the question of whether she can prove them is notfor the court to decide at this juncture."

He denied ConAgra's motion for dismissal on the breach of expresswarranty claim, but granted dismissal on the unjust enrichmentclaim.

Plaintiffs in the three California cases -- Rushing, Lerner andWyatt -- bring class action claims against motor fuel retailersalleging various claims based on defendants' practice of sellingmotor fuel for a specified price per gallon without disclosing oradjusting for temperature, and without disclosing the effect oftemperature on motor fuel.

On July 19, 2013, as to Chevron, the Court sustained defendants'motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs' four certified claims.That same day, the Court ordered the parties to show cause whetherand to what extent the summary judgment order can be applied toplaintiffs' claims against the remaining non-settling defendants,i.e. Circle K Stores, Inc., Flying J, Inc., Petro StoppingCenters, L.P., Pilot Travel Centers LLC, TravelCenters of AmericaLLC, G&M Oil Company, Inc., G&M Oil Co., LLC, World Oil Corp.,United El Segundo, Inc. and 7-Eleven, Inc. The Court also askedthe parties to propose how to proceed in the California cases andto explain what effect (if any) the summary judgment order has onthe proposed class notices and notice plan.

In her memorandum and order, Judge Vratil said that havingsustained defendants' motions for summary judgments on plaintiffs'certified claims, and having declined to require plaintiffs toprovide class notice regarding those claims, the Court intends tosuggest that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remandto their respective transferor courts plaintiffs' Californiaclaims against the non-settling defendants in Rushing, Lerner andWyatt with instructions to enter judgment consistent with theCourt's summary judgment orders.

With regard to the California claims against the non-settlingdefendants, the Court will not require plaintiffs to providenotice to the California classes, Judge Vratil held.

A copy of the District Court's August 14, 2013 Memorandum andOrder is available at http://is.gd/uQtt3tfrom Leagle.com.

CROWN CRAFTS: Class Action Over Crib Bumper Products Dismissed--------------------------------------------------------------Crown Crafts, Inc. on Sept. 9 disclosed that a class actionlawsuit against the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, CrownCrafts Infant Products, Inc., has been dismissed.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2013, alleged that CCIP's crib bumperproducts put children at risk of suffocation or crib death andthat the Company and CCIP concealed and failed to disclose thesepurported risks through allegedly false and misleading advertisingand product packaging. The complaint did not allege that anychild had actually been harmed by these products. The complaintalleged violations of various consumer protection laws inCalifornia. On September 6, 2013, the federal court in LosAngeles, California dismissed the case without prejudice in itsentirety.

The fixture's socket wire insulation can degrade and lead tocharged wires becoming exposed, causing electricity to pass to themetal canopy of the fixture. This poses a fire and electric shockhazard to consumers.

The firm has received two reports of defective fixtures. Noinjuries have been reported to the firm.

The recall involves round ceiling-mounted light fixtures sold insatin nickel, bronze, polished brass, antique brass, white, orbronze finishes with a domed white or amber glass shade. Thelight fixture is 14 inches in diameter and 5.75 inches high andhas two sockets marked "BO AN" which take 75 watt bulbs. The 16recalled light fixtures were sold as Dolan Designs models 502-30,522-09, 522-14, 522-18, 522-22, 522-30, 522-32, 522-60, 522-78,5332-133, 5372-66, 5372-78, 5382-20, 5382-55, 5382-100 and 5392-20. The brand name and model number are on the inside of thefixture pan, visible when the glass shade is removed.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold atBuilders Lighting, Globe Lighting, Seattle Lighting and otherlighting showrooms nationwide and on-line atdestinationlighting.com between September 2008 and October 2009for about $47.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lightfixtures and return them to the place of purchase to obtain a freereplacement fixture, or contact Dolan Designs to schedule a freein-home repair.

DUTCH VALLEY: Recalls Honey Roasted Peanuts for Undeclared Milk---------------------------------------------------------------As a result of an internal review, Dutch Valley is issuing arecall on Honey Roasted Peanuts due to undeclared Milk and WheatIngredients. Individuals with food allergies to Milk and or Wheatmay run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergicreaction if they consume these products.

There have been no illnesses or issues reported regardingconsumption of this product to date.

All Items packaged and sold within the parameters mentioned aresubject to this recall, including items sold on our website,http://www.dutchvalleyfoods.com. These items were distributed nationwide and affect the following states: CT, DE, IL, KY, MD,NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX and WI. Retailers are advised to remove thisproduct from store shelves based on the Best By Date. Consumerswho have purchased these products are asked to destroy them or toreturn them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumerswith questions regarding the product listed may call Dutch ValleyFoods at 1-800-733 4191 and speak with customer service, Mondaythrough Friday 8am - 5pm EST.

ELECTROLUX NA: Toledo Court Issues Opinion on Class Action----------------------------------------------------------Aaron Krause, writing for Norwalk Reflector, reports that a Toledofederal district court recently issued an opinion that "helps topreserve important Ohio consumer rights," according to a pressrelease from Sandusky law firm Murray & Murray.

In a class action lawsuit brought by Maureen Huffman, she allegedElectrolux North America Inc. produced and sold Huffman and otherpurchasers defective front loading washing machines.

"The court's recent opinion provided two important victories forOhio consumer rights," states a press release. "First, it deniedElectrolux's argument that a class could not be certified, whichwas made before the plaintiff was able to obtain evidence throughthe discovery process. Defendant companies increasingly seek touse early motions to strike class allegations to fight consumerclaims before they have been able to go through the traditionalprocess of gathering evidence and submitting a motion to certify aclass action. This opinion, like the recent decision by the SixthCircuit Court of Appeals in a class action against Whirlpool,pushes back against these continued efforts by companies to stopconsumer claims before they start.

"Second, it provided that under Ohio law, one may bring a stateproducts liability claim without being forced to give upalternative claims. The court found consumers may bring Ohioproducts liability claims along with common law claims, findingthat otherwise they would be denied their right to open courtsunder Article I, Section 16, of the Ohio Constitution."

As Electrolux's Motion to Strike was denied and its Motion toDismiss was also denied in large part, the case will now continueinto the class certification discovery phase as to all claimsexcept for implied warranty, which the court held was barred bythe limitations stated in the Electrolux product warranty.

ELSEVIER INC: Appeals Court to Decide on Medical Malpractice Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports thata federal appeals court is weighing whether medical malpracticeplaintiffs who lost birth-injury cases in which the defense reliedon a medical article the plaintiffs believe is false can sue thedoctors who wrote it and the publishers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit must decidewhether to revive the plaintiffs' case under a Massachusettsconsumer protection law that allows for treble damages.

"These plaintiffs did not get the benefit of a fair trial becauseof this article," plaintiffs attorney Kenneth Levine of Kenneth M.Levine & Associates of Brookline, Mass., told the court onSeptember 11 in A.G. v. Elsevier Inc.

The plaintiffs are two minors who suffered permanent birthinjuries to the brachial plexus, nerves that control the shoulder,arms and hands. Each filed claims against their doctors inVirginia and Illinois. The role of physician-applied traction wasan issue in each case.

The defense teams relied on a case report written by doctorsHenry Lerner and Eva Salamon and published by Elsevier Inc. Thearticle documented a permanent brachial plexus injury thatpurportedly happened without doctor-applied traction or in asituation in which the baby's shoulder was stuck in the birthcanal for too long.

The plaintiffs say they've debunked the article by reviewing therecords in the central case and the doctors' testimony in othercases.

The Illinois plaintiff lost an appeal to the Illinois AppellateCourt, which ruled in 2010 that the article had not prejudiced hiscase.

The October 2011 Massachusetts lawsuit claimed that the "writing,submitting for publication, publishing, and failing to retract anarticle stating false medical conclusions" was tantamount tounfair or deceptive practices under state law. Elsevier'sAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which published thearticle, and the Bond Clinic, where Ms. Salamon practices, arealso defendants.

District of Massachusetts Judge Nathaniel Gorton dismissed theclaim in March 2012.

The plaintiffs' First Circuit brief claimed the doctors'conclusion was flawed and that "they willfully and fraudulentlyrepresented and further perpetuated" the false article. Theyclaimed Elsevier should be liable for refusing to retract thearticle or print a clarification.

Elsevier's brief argued that the plaintiffs have produced no factsshowing that any defendant's conduct caused the malpractice jurytrial outcomes. As for its own role, Elsevier argued thatapplying a state consumer protection law to its published materialwould violate its free-speech right under the First Amendment.

The doctors made similar arguments. They claimed the plaintiffshave no way to prove their state court juries would have sidedwith them absent the case report -- and that the consumerprotection law at issue only applies to allegedly unfair businessconduct in Massachusetts.

Mr. Selya told Mr. Levine that he was struggling to see how thecase could possible qualify under the state's consumer protectionlaw. Mr. Levine replied that the defendants' actions, in thiscase the article, could affect the citizens of Massachusetts,which is a requirement for bringing consumer protection claims.

After a lengthy interchange about ways the trial lawyers couldhave sought to disqualify the article as evidence, Mr. Selyaobserved: "You want us to take what seems to me is an end-justifies-the-means approach."

Later, William Strong of Boston's Kotin, Crabtree & Strong arguedfor Elsevier that there's no such thing as publishing malpractice."If we go down the road of treating this as a malpractice type ofaction, we're getting into very deep water," he said.

Chad Brouillard -- CBrouillard@fosteld.com -- of Foster & Eldridgein Cambridge, Mass., who represents Dr. Salamon and the BondClinic, boiled his argument down to why the parties from thevarious states shouldn't face this case.

"This is the type of case that screams out a personal jurisdictionproblem," Mr. Brouillard said.

Alina Tamas brought this putative class/collective action pursuantto the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Lawagainst Family Video Movie Club, Inc. Ms. Tamas, a formersalaried Store Manager and Manager-in-Training at Family Video,alleges that she and those who were similarly-situated wereimproperly classified as exempt employees and thus deprived ofovertime pay. Ms.Tamas moved for conditional certification of theFLSA class and certification of the IMWL class.

Judge Lee held that the Plaintiff's motion for notice to potentialclass members is granted in part and denied in part.

This FLSA class is conditionally certified for the purposes ofnotice and discovery: "All salaried Managers in Training and StoreManagers who worked for Family Video Movie Club, Inc. at any timeduring the past three years."

Judicial notice to the FLSA class in the form proposed by thePlaintiff will be sent to all putative class members as set forthin the schedule proposed by the Plaintiff.

The Court directed Family Video to provide the Plaintiff's Counselwith the contact information for each putative collective classmember within 14 days from the date of the Order.

The Plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members isdenied as to her proposed IMWL class, Judge Lee ruled.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Memorandum Opinionand Order is available at http://is.gd/n6VEeGfrom Leagle.com.

GALANT FOOD: Recalls Chicken Provance French Puff-------------------------------------------------Galant Food Company, a San Leandro, Calif. establishment, isrecalling approximately 420 pounds of Chicken Provance French puffpastry product because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen.The products are formulated with an egg wash glaze that containsegg, a known allergen, which is not declared on the label.

The product subject to recall includes:

-- 4-oz. of "Chicken Provance French Puff" bearing the establishment number "EST. 9014" inside the USDA mark of inspection on the label. Identifying case codes are: 7193, 9053 and 9093.

The products were produced on July 19, Sept. 5 and Sept. 9, 2013and shipped to restaurants and cafes in the San Francisco Bayarea.

The problem was discovered during a food safety assessment at theestablishment. FSIS personnel are responsible for verifying thatestablishments are actively labeling the eight most common foodallergens. The firm recently relocated, and the problem occurreddue to difficulties with label printing equipment at their newlocation.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactionsdue to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about areaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verifyrecalling firms notify their customers of the recall and thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contactRichard Fairchild, the company's recall coordinator, at415-552-5475.

GEORGIA: Motion to Decertify and Dismiss ADA Class Suit Denied--------------------------------------------------------------District Judge Richard W. Story denied a motion filed by thedefendants in BELTON v. STATE to de-certify class and to dismissfor lack of standing. The Defendants' motion to strike affidavitswas also denied.

Street View cars, which travel the world taking photographs andcapturing data for Google, inadvertently collected some 600gigabytes of private data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks in morethan 30 countries. The company collected the data, which included"personal emails, usernames, passwords, videos, and documents,"between 2007 and 2010, after which it purportedly corrected theissue, the court noted.

Upon admitting the mistake, however, Google faced a number ofpotential class actions. The complaints were eventuallyconsolidated in California, where lead plaintiff Benjamin Joffeand others sought to certify a class of "all persons whoseelectronic communications were intercepted by Google Street Viewvehicles since May 25, 2007."

The plaintiffs claimed that Google had violated various points ofthe federal Wiretap Act, which prohibits the interception of"wire, oral, or electronic communication," except in a fewinstances. The law provides an exemption for "electroniccommunication made through an electronic communication system"that is "readily accessible to the general public." Unscrambledradio and television broadcasts fall under this exemption.

In a motion to dismiss the proposed class action, Google hadargued that all data transmitted over any Wi-Fi network is anelectronic "radio communication," and thus exempt, just as anyother radio broadcast, from the prohibition on interception thesame. It supported this argument by defining radio communicationas "any information transmitted using radio wave." Google alsojustified the interception of unencrypted WiFi networks becausethey are "readily accessible to the general public."

U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Jose disagreed on all pointsand refused to dismiss the complaint, and Google took the issue tothe 9th Circuit.

At oral argument before a three-judge panel in June, the proposedclass's attorney, Elizabeth Cabrader, warned that Google'sinterpretation of the law could open a "loophole ... big enoughfor massive government intrusion."

Affirming the lower court unanimously on Tuesday, September 10,2013, the appellate judges said that Google's "expansive"definition could bring "absurd" results, as it would apply to"Bluetooth devices, cordless and cellular phones, garage dooropeners, avalanche beacons, and wildlife tracking collars" -- allof which use the radio frequency portion of the electromagneticspectrum.

"Google's proposed definition is in tension with how Congress- andvirtually everyone else - uses the phrase," Judge Jay Bybee wrotefor the court. "In common parlance, watching a television showdoes not entail 'radio communication.' Nor does sending an emailor viewing a bank statement while connected to a Wi-Fi network.There is no indication that the Wiretap Act carries a buriedimplication that the phrase ought to be given a broader definitionthan the one that is commonly understood."

Bybee added that, under Google's contention that unsecured WiFinetworks are accessible to public, "the protections afforded bythe Wiretap Act to many online communications would turn onwhether the recipient of those communications decided to secureher wireless network."

"Lending 'radio communication' a broad definition that encompassesdata transmitted on Wi-Fi networks would obliterate Congress'scompromise and create absurd applications of the exemption forintercepting unencrypted radio communications," the panelconcluded.

A Google spokesperson called the decision disappointing and saidthe Company is considering its "next steps."

The appellate case is Benjamin Joffe, et al. v. Google Inc., CaseNo. 11-17483, in the United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit. The original case is Benjamin Joffe, et al. v. GoogleInc., Case No. 5:10-md-02184-JW, in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of California, San Jose.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling affirminga previous judgment that denied Google's motion to dismiss,meaning that the company can't yet drive away unscathed from thescandal.

"We are disappointed in the Ninth Circuit's decision and areconsidering our next steps," a Google spokesperson told CNET.

Between 2007 and 2010, Google's Street View cars, equipped withWi-Fi antennas, collected and stored "payload data" such ase-mails, usernames, passwords, videos, and documents that weresent and received over unencrypted Wi-Fi connections. Googlecollected around 600 gigabytes of data transferred over Wi-Finetworks in more than 30 countries, according to court documents.

In May 2010, the company apologized for the inadvertenttransgression, but was soon hit with several class action lawsuitsthat were eventually consolidated into a single complaint thataccused Google of violating federal and state wiretap statutes.

Google sought to have the suit dismissed, claiming that itsactions were not illegal because data transmitted over a Wi-Finetwork is an electronic radio communication that is "readilyaccessible to the general public" and therefore exempt under theWiretap Act. The original district court rejected Google'sargument, as did the federal appeals court, which held that radiocommunication excludes payload data transmitted over a Wi-Finetwork.

"Lending 'radio communication' a broad definition that encompassesdata transmitted on Wi-Fi networks would obliterate Congress'scompromise and create absurd applications of the exemption ofintercepting unencrypted radio communications," the 9th U.S.Circuit Court wrote in its ruling.

"We now hold, in agreement with the district court, that payloaddata transmitted over an unencrypted Wi-Fi network is not 'readilyaccessible to the general public' and, consequently, that Googlecannot avail itself to the exemption."

With the court discrediting the crux of Google's argument, thesearch company can go to trial, settle, ask the court to rehearthe case, or petition the Supreme Court, according to Wired, whichwas first to report on the ruling.

GREE ELECTRIC: Recalls 12 Brands of Dehumidifiers Due to Fire Risk------------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withGree Electric Appliances, of China, announced a voluntary recallof about 2.2 million in the United States and 52,500 in Canadadehumidifiers. Consumers should stop using this product unlessotherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt toresell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold atAAFES, HH Gregg, Home Depot, Kmart, Lowe's, Menards, Mills FleetFarm, Sam's Club, Sears and other stores nationwide and in Canada,and online at Amazon.com and Ebay.com, from January 2005 throughAugust 2013 for between $110 and $400.

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the dehumidifiersand contact Gree to receive a full refund.

HALCON ENERGY: Remand Order in "Vodenichar" Case Affirmed---------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmeda district court decision in VODENICHAR v. HALCON ENERGYPROPERTIES, INC.

Defendant Halcon Energy took an appeal from the District CourtOrder remanding the case to state court based on the "home state"exception to subject matter jurisdiction under the Class ActionFairness Act.

The Third Circuit affirmed the ruling but did so based on CAFA's"local controversy" exception.

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED INTERNAP NETWORKSERVICES, CORP. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MAY 3, 2007 AND AUGUST 5,2008, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Georgia: (1) that the above-captioned litigation has been certified as a class action onbehalf of all persons or entities who purchased common stock inInternap Network Services, Corp., from May 3, 2007 throughAugust 5, 2008, inclusive, except for certain persons and entitieswho are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in theStipulation of Settlement of the Litigation; and (2) that LeadPlaintiffs in the Litigation have reached a proposed settlementwith the Defendants for $9.5 million in cash, plus interestthereon if the Settlement is approved by the Court.

YOU ARE FURTHER HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,that a hearing will be held on December 4, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.,before the Honorable J. Owen Forrester at the Richard B. RussellFederal Building and Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, SW, Atlanta,Georgia, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposedSettlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal sumof $9,500,000 in cash, plus accrued interest, should be approvedby the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether,thereafter, the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudicepursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulationof Settlement, dated August 5, 2013; (3) whether the Plan ofAllocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore shouldbe approved; and (4) whether the application of Plaintiffs'counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurredin connection with the Litigation, and reimbursement awards toClass Representatives, should be approved.

If you purchased Internap common stock from May 3, 2007 throughAugust 5, 2008, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, your rightsmay be affected by the Settlement of the Litigation. If you havenot received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of ClassAction and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you mayobtain copies by writing to Internap Securities Litigation, ClaimsAdministrator, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 58548,Philadelphia, PA 19102-8548, or on the internet by going tohttp://www.InternapSettlement.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distributionof the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claimpostmarked no later than December 4, 2013, establishing that youare entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit arequest for exclusion postmarked by November 9, 2013, in themanner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred toabove. All Members of the Class who do not timely and validlyrequest exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgmententered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions ofthe Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered, inthe manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred toabove, such that it is received by each of the following no laterthan November 9, 2013:

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDINGTHIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, youmay contact counsel for the Plaintiffs at the address listed aboveor go to the following website: www.InternapSettlement.com.

DATED: September 10, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERNDISTRICT OF GEORGIA

J&J's McNeil unit said on Sept. 6 that the recall affects threelots of its popular Motrin Drops Original Berry Flavor, which isused to lower fever and treat aches and pains in children 2 yearsold and younger. The company warned that the medicine may becontaminated with specs of PTFE, a plastic also used in Tefloncoatings.

McNeil says it's unclear if the recalled bottles actually containthe particles, which were found in a different product during themanufacturing process. The company decided to issue the recallbecause both products contain the same shipment of ibuprofen froma third-party supplier. Ibuprofen is a common pain reliever andfever reducer, also used in Advil.

"From our perspective, during the manufacturing process at thethird party supplier, that's when the particles got into theibuprofen," said McNeil Vice President Ed Kuffner, in an interviewwith the Associated Press. Mr. Kuffner declined to identify thecompany that made the ibuprofen.

The recalled bottles can be identified by lot numbers: DCB3T01,DDB4R01 and DDB4S01

McNeil is asking retailers to take the affected products off storeshelves. Consumers should stop using the affected medicine andcall the company for a refund at 1-877-414-7709.

The recalled Motrin was manufactured at the company's plant inBeerse, Belgium. McNeil's primary manufacturing plant inFort Washington, Pa., has been closed since the spring of 2010after a string of recalls involving brands like Tylenol, Motrinand Zyrtec. That included the recall of more than 136 millionchildren and infant over-the-counter medicines in April 2010, thelargest recall of its kind.

The Sept. 6 announcement is the latest in about 40 product recallsannounced by the New Brunswick, N.J.-based health careconglomerate since 2009.

In 2013 alone, J&J has recalled: millions of oral contraceptivedue to flawed tablets, Adept hip implants that were failing andhad to be replaced prematurely, OneTouch VerioIQ blood glucosemeters that shut off rather than issuing a warning when bloodsugar levels get dangerously high, Children's Tylenol made inSouth Korea that contained too much acetaminophen and versions ofK-Y Jelly personal lubricant that potentially never got requiredregulatory approval.

MADE EVENT: Sued Over Refunds in Cancelled Electric Zoo Concert---------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims MadeEvent LLC owes refunds to people who bought three-day tickets (@$407.37) to the recent Electric Zoo music festival, the third dayof which was canceled, in New York County Supreme Court.

According to Barbara Ross of the New York Daily News, thepromoters of the Randall's Island rave concert was cancelled aftertwo people died of suspected drug overdoses and 19 otherscollapsed on Labor Day weekend.

Lawyer Tony Merchant Q.C. explained one of the key allegationsthat will be asserted through this class action litigation:"People thought they were getting a valuable type of insurance butour litigation contends they were both being overcharged and notgetting the insurance protection they thought they were buying.When people tried to use the alleged insurance, they weresystematically denied coverage based on what insiders indicate wasa pre-planned scheme coordinated to deny claims. Canadians whowere manipulated into buying these products were often paying anextra fee of 50 or more per month on top of their monthly mortgagepayment but were not receiving the protection or coverage beingpromoted."

In October 2012, when Manulife Financial announced it waspurchasing Benesure Canada Inc., Manulife indicated: "With theannouncement of this transaction, Manulife Affinity Marketsbecomes Canada's largest provider of creditor insurance solutionsfor mortgage brokers, currently earning premiums in excess of 65million from more than 170,000 Benesure Canada Inc. clients."

In January 2013, Manulife Financial announced it had fullycompleted its acquisition of Benesure Canada Inc.

Canadians seeking further information about the Manulife-BenesureMortgage Insurance Class Action should provide their contactinformation athttps://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/mortgage.php

Merchant Law Group LLP is a Canadian class action firm with 12offices across Canada. Merchant Law Group LLP is well known forits involvement in mass tort and class action cases in Canadaincluding Residential Schools, Cellular System Access Fees,Hollinger, Maple Leaf Foods, Toyota, Vioxx, and various othercases.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether an arbitrationagreement signed by respondents Barbara Brown and Cindy Hiett ispermeated with unconscionability and therefore unenforceable underCalifornia law.

The Supreme Court held that the forum selection and punitivedamages provisions are not unconscionable and that the arbitratorselection, statute of limitations, and fee shifting provisions areunconscionable.

"The unconscionable taint cannot be removed through severance,"Justice James M. Johnson said. "We hold that because thearbitration agreement is permeated with unconscionability, it isunenforceable. We note that our holdings are limited to the factsof this case because we must apply California law," he added.

MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears--------------------------------------------------------Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former AttorneyGeneral of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors thatthey have until November 8, 2013 to file lead plaintiffapplications in a securities class action lawsuit against MiMedxGroup, Inc., if they purchased the Company's securities during theperiod between March 15, 2013 and September 4, 2013, inclusive.This action is pending in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of MiMedx and would like to discuss yourlegal rights and how this case might affect you and your right torecover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation orcost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, or email KSFManaging Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- or KSFPartner Melinda Nicholson -- melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com --If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, youmust petition the Court by November 8, 2013.

About the Lawsuit

MiMedx and certain of its executives are charged with issuing aseries of materially false and misleading statements about whetherits AmnioFix product required U.S. Food and Drug Administrationapproval to be manufactured and marketed during the Class Period,violating federal securities laws.

On September 4, 2013, MiMedx confirmed receipt of an "UntitledLetter" the FDA sent to MiMedx on August 28, which stated thatMiMedx's Surgical Biologics unit violated the Public HealthService Act by unlawfully manufacturing and marketing drugs thatare also a biological product without a valid biologics license.

On this news, the price of MiMedx's shares fell drastically, byover 36%.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the FormerLouisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and otherlawyers with significant experience litigating complex securitiesclass actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional andindividual shareholders, you may visit http://www.ksfcounsel.com

-- 30-lb. boxes of "National Beef" Beef Tongue Root Filet, Product Code "12753." These products bear the establishment number "EST. 262" inside the USDA mark of inspection and include a pack date of "081913A." The products were produced on August 19, 2013, and were shipped to a distributor in Amarillo, Texas, for further processing.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS monitoring whichconfirmed a positive result for E. coli O157:H7. An investigationdetermined National Beef Packing Company was the sole supplier ofthe source materials used to produce the positive product.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnessesassociated with consumption of these products. Individualsconcerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verifyrecalling firms notify their customers (including restaurants) ofthe recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain thatthe product is no longer available to consumers. When available,the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS websiteat: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can causebloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidneyfailure. The very young, seniors and persons with weak immunesystems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meatproducts, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beefthat has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F. The only way toconfirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough tokill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measuresinternal temperature.

Consumers with questions should contact the company at 1-877-857-4143, or visit National Beef's website athttp://www.nationalbeef.comfor details about the recall and the company's return and reimbursement policy. Media with questionsregarding the recall should contact National Beef's Spokesperson,Keith Welty, at (816) 713-8631.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov orvia smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat servicesare available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can bereached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday throughFriday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours aday.

NCO FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Ruling in "Holmes" Suit Overturned------------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverseda district court's grant of summary judgment in HOLMES v. NCOFINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and remanded the case for furtherproceedings.

The case is HAROLD HOLMES, an individual, on his own behalf and onbehalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.NCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC and DOES, 1-100, inclusive,Defendants-Appellees, NO. 11-56969.

A copy of the Circuit Court's August 16, 2013 Memorandum isavailable at http://is.gd/GtX6Bofrom Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs alleged, separately, that the claim "NO . . .petrochemicals" was false and misleading, in and of itself, giventhe presence of petrochemical residues in the products.

Under the terms of the settlement, Neutrogena will (1) replace"petrochemicals" with "petrolatum" in the claim, "NO . . .petrochemicals" and (2) include on product labels, "a statementregarding the percentage of each product that is naturallyderived." Neutrogena will pay $1.3 million to a settlement fund.Following pay-outs to consumers, any remainder "shall bedistributed to an appropriate non-profit or civic entity(ies)agreed to by the Parties and approved by the Court." Neutrogenawill pay up to $500,000 to the class counsel and up to $1,500(total) to three class representatives.

Another "natural" class action in the personal care space iscurrently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. That case isagainst the maker of Jason Naturals. The lower court dismissedthe lawsuit, finding that primary jurisdiction over "natural"claims for cosmetics rests with the FDA. The FDA has sinceprovided a letter to the plaintiffs stating that it has no plansto define the term, "natural," as to cosmetics.

NEW YORK: Bid to Dismiss Intervening Claims Denied--------------------------------------------------In the Matter of the Application of QUANISHA SMITH, Petitioner,For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 and Section 3001 of theCivil Practice Law and Rules, v. ELIZABETH BERLIN, as ExecutiveDeputy Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary andDisability Assistance, and ROBERT DOAR, as Administrator of theNew York City Human Resources Administration, and BQNY PROPERTIES,LLC, Respondents, 2013 NY Slip Op 31911(U), Judge Lucy Billings ofthe Supreme Court of New York County granted the plaintiff's"motion for intervention amendment" of her pleading and classcertification, and denied respondent Berlin's cross-motion todismiss the intervening claims.

Ms. Smith commenced the proceeds after the commissioners of thetwo agencies reduced her public assistance as a punitive sanctionfor her alleged failure to attend a mandatory employmentappointment.

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 14, 2013 Decision and Orderis available at http://is.gd/CJtSKKfrom Leagle.com.

The proposed amended complaint primarily seeks to add theallegation that defendants failed to give advance written noticeto plaintiffs prior to accessing their consumer credit reports asthe NYFCRA (GBL Section 380-b[b]) requires. It also seeks tostreamline plaintiffs' allegations by removing plaintiff StephanieWeier from the caption due to her bankruptcy filing, deletingreferences to her within the Proposed Amended Complaint anddeleting dismissed Counts I (willful violation of FCRA Section1681b[f] by accessing CCRs without a permissible purpose), IX (GBLSection 349) and X (defamation). Plaintiffs contend NLS will notbe "unduly prejudiced" by the amendment since discovery is ongoingand no further proceedings are presently scheduled.

Judge Martin Shulman of the Supreme Court, New York County heldthat amendment is granted subject to the removal of "negligentimpermissible access allegations on behalf of the class as againstthe individual defendants."

The Court directed the Plaintiffs to serve the proposed amendedcomplaint, revised in accordance with the terms of its decisionand order.

The Court directed counsel for the parties to appear for a statusconference on September 10, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., at 60 CentreStreet, Room 325, New York, New York.

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 13, 2013 Decision & Order isavailable at http://is.gd/RypNhefrom Leagle.com.

OUACHITA PARISH: Desegregation Suit Dismissed With Prejudice------------------------------------------------------------TAYLOR v. OUACHITA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD is a desegregation actionoriginally brought in 1966 by parents of black students attendingschool in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. On January 30, 1970, theCourt issued a desegregation decree, under which the OuachitaParish School Board has operated, with modification and amendment,for more than 40 years.

The desegregation permanently enjoined the School Board from (a)continuing to refuse to admit minor plaintiffs, or the members ofthe class they represent, to the schools which they would attendif they were white, (b) continuing to assign students to schoolswith regard to race or color, (c) continuing to operate acompulsory bi-racial school system in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana,(d) continuing to maintain dual school zone or attendance arealines based on race or color, (e) continuing to approve budgets,construction programs, policies, curricula and programs designedto perpetuate, maintain or support a school system operated on aracially segregated basis.

Before the Court is a motion filed by the Ouachita Parish SchoolBoard for declaration of unitary status and for dismissal, seekingunitary status in the remaining areas of student assignment andtransportation.

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes granted the motion saying theSchool Board has demonstrated that it has achieved unitary statusin the remaining areas of transportation and student assignment;has exhibited good faith in achievement and maintenance of suchnon-discriminatory programs; and is prepared, willing, and readyto move forward in a constitutionally consistent manner withoutdirect judicial supervision in these areas. The Court, therefore,relinquishes its supervision of these areas and returnssupervision to the School Board. All remaining portions of theDecree and/or orders of the Court are dissolved, and this case isdismissed with prejudice, ruled Judge Hayes.

In her decision, District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan granted PVFCapital's motion to dismiss the action, saying the lead plaintiff,Sylvia Kugelman, had failed to specify which statements in PVFCapital's latest SEC proxy statement were rendered misleading bythe company's omissions.

"Plaintiff makes no argument that any of the information sheidentified as omitted from the proxy statement was required to bedisclosed by an SEC regulation. Plaintiff's sole basis for aviolation [of] securities law rests on a claim that the omissionsrender specific statements in the proxy statement misleading,"Judge Gaughan wrote in her opinion dismissing Ms. Kugelman'sclaims.

FNB said in February it had signed a definitive merger agreementwith PVF Capital, the Solon, Ohio-based parent company of ParkView Federal Savings Bank. The Schedule 14A proxy statement itfiled with the SEC in July served as a prospectus for the merger.

The complaint, which Ms. Kugelman filed in the Northern Districtof Ohio in July, accused PVF Capital's board members of breachingtheir fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the company'sshareholders by misrepresenting or omitting material informationin the proxy statement.

Ms. Kugelman claimed the proxy statement failed to disclose keyinformation on PVF Capital's long-term prospects, financialanalyses supporting the merger, information about the lead-up tothe announcement of the proposed merger, and conflicts of interestaffecting both the board and its financial adviser.

Judge Gaughan found these allegations insufficient, sayingMs. Kugelman had merely pointed to "broad swaths" of statementsthat she found misleading, and had failed to plead which specificstatements in the proxy statement were affected by PVF Capital'somissions.

Ms. Kugelman had also failed to plead that the absence of theinformation in question made the company's statements misleading,Judge Gaughan said.

The judge added that even though Ms. Kugelman might have wanted tosee more information in PVF Capital's proxy statements, she wasnot entitled to it by law.

FNB and PVF Capital jointly announced their merger Feb. 19. FNBsaid it would acquire PVF Capital in an all-stock transactionvalued at approximately $3.98 per share, or $106.4 million.

The acquisition of PVF Capital would provide FNB an additional$782 million in total assets, $634 million in total deposits, $600million in gross loans, and 16 banking offices in the Clevelandarea. The transaction would expand FNB's Cleveland presence andgive it a top-15 deposit market share in the metropolitanstatistical area, the companies said.

Representatives for both parties could not immediately be reachedfor comment on Sept. 9.

FNB is represented by Roy W. Arnold, James L. Rockney, James M.Doerfler and Lauren M. Kelly of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Kugelman v. PVF Capital Corp. et al., case number1:13-cv-01606, in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Ohio.

RAWSON-NEAL PSYCHIATRIC: Faces Class Action Over Patient Dumping----------------------------------------------------------------Cynthia Hubert and Phillip Reese, writing for The Sacramento Bee,report that the state of Nevada and its primary psychiatrichospital "intentionally and wrongfully" foisted the cost of caringfor indigent mentally ill people onto California cities andcounties by issuing patients bus tickets out of town withoutmaking proper arrangements for their care, a lawsuit filed onSept. 10 in San Francisco charges.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed the class-actionlawsuit against Nevada, Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in LasVegas and state mental health administrators, seekingreimbursement for the care of indigent patients he said the system"dumped" onto California in an effort to save money.

"What the defendants have been doing for years is horribly wrongon two levels," Mr. Herrera said in a written statement announcingthe lawsuit. "It cruelly victimizes a defenseless population, andpunishes jurisdictions for providing health and human servicesthat others won't provide."

In addition to unspecified financial damages, the suit asks for apermanent injunction preventing Nevada from dispatchingpsychiatric patients to California unless they are residents ofthe destination city or county, are being sent to family memberswho have agreed to care for them, or are being sent to a medicalfacility where arrangements have been made for their treatment.

Mary Woods, spokeswoman for the Nevada Department of Health andHuman Services, said on Sept. 10 that her agency would have noimmediate comment on the suit.

The action follows a formal demand Mr. Herrera issued last monthto Nevada officials. He said he planned to take legal actionwithin weeks unless the state reimbursed San Francisco $500,000for care of patients he maintains were improperly bused to thecity since 2008. Mr. Herrera said an investigation by his officehad identified 24 patients who had been bused to San Franciscoover the past five years, 20 of whom Mr. Herrera said requiredemergency treatment upon arrival.

Nevada's attorney general responded last week with a letterarguing that San Francisco had offered insufficient evidence tojustify its claim. Records gathered by state health officials andgiven to Mr. Herrera "demonstrate that the policies areappropriate and that only proper discharges were made," reads theletter, sent on Sept. 9 and signed by Chief Deputy AttorneyGeneral Linda Anderson.

Nevada's mental health system has been in the spotlight formonths, following a Sacramento Bee report published earlier thisyear that found Rawson-Neal had bused 1,500 mentally ill patientsout of Southern Nevada from July 2008 through early March 2013.About 500 were given one-way tickets to California.

The Bee undertook its investigation after one of those patients,James Flavy Coy Brown, turned up suicidal and confused at aSacramento homeless services complex after a 15-hour bus ride fromLas Vegas to the capital city. Mr. Brown said he knew no one inSacramento and that Rawson-Neal doctors advised him to dial 911once he arrived in the city.

Nevada health officials have acknowledged that they erred inshipping Mr. Brown to Sacramento without any arrangements forcare. But they contend his case was an exception and that thevast majority of patients bused from Rawson-Neal had family ortreatment waiting for them on the other end of their journeys.

They said many of the patients bused to their "home states" werevacationers who suffered breakdowns or abused drugs. A Herreraspokesman disputed that explanation.

"This is about Nevada's state-sanctioned practice of improperlytransporting indigent psychiatric patients," said Matt Dorsey."It's not about patients who travel voluntarily between Nevada andother states."

The lawsuit filed on Sept. 10 charges that Nevada sent mentallyill people to California in a manner that placed patients, theirfellow Greyhound passengers and residents of the places where theylanded in peril.

"All of the patients were transported without escorts," and oftenwithout "adequate food, water and medication" to sustain themduring lengthy bus trips. Because the hospital failed to makeproper arrangements for their care, many of the patients "ended upon the streets of their destination cities without funds or meansof support, shelter or medication," the suit reads.

Although Nevada is required by state law to care for its poor andindigent, it sent patients out of state "and avoided expending itsown public resources" to provide for them, it says.

The state's aggressive busing practices coincide with funding cutsthat slashed Nevada's mental health budget by 28 percent between2009 and 2012. During the same period, the number of psychiatricpatients bused from Rawson-Neal grew by 66 percent.

Since Mr. Brown's case became public, the hospital's dischargepractices have been under scrutiny by an array of regulatorygroups. Recently, Rawson-Neal lost its coveted accreditation withthe private Joint Commission and remains under investigation bythe U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which hasthreatened to pull its Medicare reimbursements. In addition,Sacramento attorney Mark Merin has filed a class-action lawsuit onbehalf of Brown and others, charging that Nevada's busing policiesviolated patients' constitutional rights.

The lawsuit filed on Sept. 10 offers detailed information aboutseveral previously unpublicized cases that Mr. Herrera saidillustrate improper practices by the Nevada system. In one, ahomeless man with schizophrenia and a history of visits to Rawson-Neal was bused to San Francisco even though he "had no stablesupport system there," the suit says. Upon arrival, he receivedfive days of crisis care.

After returning to Las Vegas, the man again wound up at thepsychiatric hospital and got another bus ticket to San Francisco.Police brought him to San Francisco General Hospital after he"expressed thoughts of homicide and suicide," according to thesuit.

Other patients shipped to the city from Nevada received publichousing and cash assistance funded by San Francisco in addition tocostly health care, the suit claims.

If successful, San Francisco's claim for reimbursement wouldestablish a precedent for awarding restitution to cities andcounties across California "able to demonstrate claims fordamages" from improper transfers of patients from Nevada, Herrerasaid in his statement.

Lisa Ikemoto, a professor at UC Davis School of Law and aspecialist in health care law, called the litigation very unusual."I haven't seen anything like it," she said.

A judge first would have to certify the suit as a class action,said Ms. Ikemoto. To win in court, San Francisco would have toprove that Nevada intentionally "dumped" patients and the cost ofcaring for them onto the city, she said.

RENT-A-CENTER: Bass Berry Discusses Pro-Arbitration Rulings-----------------------------------------------------------M. Jason Hale, Esq., Brian R. Iverson, Esq. and Anthony J.McFarland, Esq. at Bass, Berry & Sims PLC report that since 2010,the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals haveissued several influential pro-arbitration rulings which arebeginning to impact financial services litigation. At least onedistrict court recently held that a bank's use of an arbitrationprovision in a customer agreement is enforceable, requiring thedismissal of a putative class action being brought by thatcustomer.

In August 2010, the Supreme Court held that even the question ofenforceability of the arbitration clause was a question for thearbitrator, not a court, and the Court further limited the abilityof employees and consumers to challenge the fairness ofarbitration provisions. Rent-A-Center West v. Antonio Jackson,130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010). Rent-A-Center is widely viewed as animportant pro-arbitration shift in the law of arbitration clauseenforceability. Two additional cases have since extended the pro-arbitration policy to uphold class action waivers in consumercontracts.

The August 28, 2013 decision of the Florida judge came just oneday after the court heard oral argument on the issue. The court'sdecision is particularly significant because it had previouslydenied motions to dismiss filed by various banks, and hadpermitted bank customers, over the banks' objections, to proceedwith discovery in their lawsuits. In fact, the judge previouslyrebuffed a bank's attempt to enforce its arbitration provision,holding that the provision was unenforceable and unconscionablebecause it contained a class action waiver which he believedunfairly protected the bank from liability. The judge furtherruled that the agreement was impermissibly one-sided.

The federal court's reversal is especially noteworthy not onlybecause it follows and adds to the growing body of law in favor ofarbitration, but also because it upholds an arbitration provisionspecifically in favor of financial institutions in a highly-watched series of overdraft fee class action lawsuits. Thedecision of the Florida court helps widen the door for financialinstitutions to use arbitration provisions to avoid costly, time-intensive and public litigation, especially class action lawsuits,in favor of private dispute resolution. Financial institutionsshould review their customer agreements and consider whether anappropriately tailored arbitration clause would help them achievetheir business and litigation strategies.

RICK'S CABARET: Strippers Entitled to Minimum Wage, Court Rules---------------------------------------------------------------Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports thatstrippers at a New York club are employees and not independentcontractors for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act, afederal judge held on Sept. 10.

Southern District Judge Paul Engelmayer said that strippers, orexotic dancers, who work at Rick's Cabaret in Midtown Manhattanare entitled to receive minimum wage. He also ruled that, underthe act and New York Labor Law, the owners of Rick's Cabaret wereunlawfully requesting and receiving part of the dancers' wages andthe tips they received -- either for dancing on stage andproviding intimate "lap" or "table" dances for club clientele at$20 per dance, or for private sessions in private rooms for asmuch as $400 per hour.

In 2010, Judge John Koeltl denied the club's motion to dismiss andcertified a class, rejecting the claim of Rick's parent company,Peregrine Enterprises Inc., that it was not an employer.

Judge Koeltl said the plaintiffs had met their pleadingobligations because they alleged the owners had almost completecontrol over the club activities of the dancers, including whatmusic they danced to and the pace and manner of their stripping.

The plaintiff class consists of 41 opt-in plaintiffs under theFLSA and some 1,900 members under New York law, and it covers theperiod between September 2005 and the present.

Judge Engelmayer's ruling on Sept. 10 came on motions for summaryjudgment. The judge said it was important the way dancers werepaid -- they could be paid $20 or more and, if the payment was incash, they could retain the entire performance fee.

But if the customer wanted to pay by credit card, he could buy for$24 each vouchers worth $20 known as "Dance Dollars," with whichto pay the dancers. The dancers would then redeem to the club theDance Dollars for $18 apiece and the club would keep the remaining$6.

Addressing the FLSA claims first, Judge Engelmayer applied the"economic realities" test and like Judge Koeltl, found a highdegree of control over the dancers. He cited several rules bywhich the dancers must abide, including no gum chewing ($100fine), having a bad attitude, using a cell phone while on thedance floor, carrying a handbag or purse on the floor or usingpublic restrooms.

The club also controlled when the dancers worked, mandated aregular eight-hour shift, and fined dancers who cancelled within24 hours. Dancers were required to pay a "house fee" to the clubevery night, a $6 "promo fee" and nightly "tip-out fees" to the"housemom," (a supervisor), the disc jockey and management.

And the club dictated hair, makeup and dress choices, required "atleast a 4 inch minimum stiletto heel and ordered that dancerscover up their tattoos while performing. The first of two-songsets were to be performed "with your dress on and second song withyour dress off." They were also barred from accepting tips invisits to private rooms with clientele.

Judge Engelmayer said that some rules, such as those barring"floor work" or pole dancing, are not part of the control analysisbecause the defendants have "fairly argued" they were for safetyreasons.

"However, the vast majority of Rick's NY's Guidelines had nothingwhatsoever to do with safety concerns or compliance with the law,"he said.

"The Club's control of the overall operations of Ricks' NY isstrong evidence of the Club's control over the means by whichdancers could make money from customers," Judge Engelmayer said,before noting that the investment in the club's operating costswas made by the owners and "Rick's NY, unlike the dancer, stood toearn a return on its investment."

Rick's also argued that dancers were independent contractorsbecause their act required a degree of skill and independentinitiative, but the judge said courts have "consistently held thatthere is limited genuine skill required to be an exotic dancer."

He also called "totally unpersuasive" Rick's argument that theexotic dancers were only one part of the operation and that theclub's restaurant, bar and televisions also served to attractcustomers. The dancers, the judge said, were "integral" to theclub.

Judge Engelmayer then conducted a slightly different analysis forthe New York Labor Law claims -- the common law test that putsmore emphasis on the degree of control and less on the economicrealities.

Here, he called the degree of control over the dancers "far morethan incidental."

"In sum, the 'actual working relationship' between the dancers andthe Club was that of employer and employee," he said.

Having found that the dancers were entitled to receive minimumwage, Judge Engelmayer held that "performance fees" charged by thedancers are not "service charges" that can be used to offsetRick's obligation to pay the minimum wage.

The tobacco companies have argued that it violates their dueprocess rights for certain 1999 jury findings from a class actionverdict -- such as the conclusion that nicotine is addictive -- tobe used against them in subsequent trials. Florida stateappellate courts tossed the associated $145 billion punitivedamages award and decertified the class, but they allowed certainfindings from the verdict to be used in the thousands of actionslater filed by individual plaintiffs.

The Sept. 6 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Eleventh Circuit said the Florida courts' approach may be"unorthodox" but was not so unfair to the tobacco companies thatit violated their constitutional rights. The opinion by JudgeWilliam Pryor Jr. included an unorthodox element, too -- hiscitation of the Tex Williams song "Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! (ThatCigarette)."

Judge Pryor pointed to the modest nature of the specific verdictsbefore the court -- less than $28,000 and $8,000 in two wrongfuldeath cases -- as evidence that juries are considering thecigarette makers' other arguments.

Lawyers at Jones Day who have been handling the cases for R.J.Reynolds Tobacco Co. couldn't be reached for comment.Richard Lantinberg -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- a lawyer with TheWilner Firm in Jacksonville, Fla., and a member of the plaintiffs'team, said he expects the tobacco companies will ask the fullEleventh Circuit to re-examine the latest ruling, then, failingthat, seek U.S. Supreme Court review.

The issue decided by the Eleventh Circuit traces back to a classaction filed against several major cigarette manufacturers in1994. A Florida state court jury found in favor of individualplaintiffs and the class as a whole, awarding $145 billion inpunitives.

When the tobacco companies appealed, state appeals courts upheldtwo of the individual verdicts. But they found that the punitivesaward was improper and decertified the class on the grounds thatindividual determinations of specific causation and damagescouldn't be established on a classwide basis.

Attempting to avoid re-trying all liability issues in thousands ofcases, however, the Florida Supreme Court found what it called a"pragmatic solution." The watershed 2006 decision, Engle v.Liggett Group Inc., permitted certain findings from the verdict tobe retained in follow-on damage actions, such that some of thejury's classwide findings would be given preclusive effect insubsequent individual trials of one-time class members.

Among those findings were the jury's determination that thetobacco companies marketed cigarettes that were defective andunreasonably dangerous; that they concealed or omitted materialinformation about the health and addictive effects of smoking; andthat they failed to exercise the degree of care that a "reasonablecigarette manufacturer" would have exercised under similarcircumstances.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the tobacco companies'petition that argued the preclusive use of those findings violatedtheir due process rights. In 2010, an Eleventh Circuit panel ofJudges Edward Carnes and Frank Hull and Senior Judge R. LanierAnderson said that, as a matter of Florida preclusion law,individual plaintiffs still would have much to prove to win theircases, but the panel didn't reach the due process question.

In a 2011 ruling meant to apply to all so-called Engle progenycases pending in the Middle District of Florida, U.S. DistrictJudge Timothy Corrigan rejected the companies' due processarguments, allowing federal trials to proceed in that district.Individual lawsuits filed in federal and state courts haveresulted in a range of verdicts, from complete defense wins tomultimillion-dollar awards.

In March of this year, a divided Florida Supreme Court upheld anindividual plaintiff's verdict against several tobacco companies,rejecting as a matter of both Florida preclusion law and federalconstitutional law the companies' argument that the Engle findingswere too general to be binding on individual actions.

The federal courts are the final word on U.S. constitutionalquestions, however, and the tobacco companies appealed federaljury verdicts in favor of two deceased smokers, Albert Walker andSarah Duke, to the Eleventh Circuit. The jury in Mr. Walker'scase found his spouse had suffered $275,000 in damages as a resultof his death but that Mr. Walker was 90 percent at fault, reducingthe award to $27,500. The Duke jury found that Duke's estate hadincurred $30,705 in medical or funeral expenses but found Duke 75percent at fault, reducing the award to $7,676.25.

Gregory Katsas, a Jones Day partner in Washington who madebusinesses' Supreme Court argument against the 2010 federal healthcare overhaul, appeared on behalf of R.J. Reynolds at the Julyarguments before Judge Pryor, Senior Judge James Hill and visitingU.S. District Court Judge J. Randal Hall of Augusta. New YorkUniversity law school professor Samuel Issacharoff argued for theplaintiffs.

In his opinion for the unanimous panel, Judge Pryor explainedthat, subject to the limits of constitutional due process, thefederal Full Faith and Credit Act requires federal courts to givestate court judgments the same effect as that state's state courtswould. Under that principle, he said, state court rulings merelymust satisfy "minimum procedural requirements" and not bearbitrary. The panel found that the Florida Supreme Court'sapproach met that test, Judge Pryor writing that R.J. Reynolds hadfailed to point to any other court ruling that said a state courtjudgment on what issues were actually decided in prior litigationwas so wrong that it violated due process rights.

Judge Pryor noted that the Florida Supreme Court had allowed some,but not all, of the findings from the class action verdict to becarried forward, ruling that jury findings about fraud andintentional infliction of emotional distress could not be used inlater trials. He also chronicled R.J. Reynolds' opportunities tobe heard on the issues of common liability, from contesting theoriginal jury verdict form, to taking the matter to the U.S.Supreme Court. Judge Pryor added that R.J. Reynolds "hasvigorously contested the remaining elements of the claims,including causation and damages" in the subsequent trials, and themodest verdicts in the Walker and Duke cases "suggest that thejuries fairly considered the questions of damages and fault."

R.J. Reynolds had argued it was impossible to tell whether theEngle jury determined it had acted wrongfully in connection withsome or all of its brands of cigarettes because the plaintiffspresented both general and brand-specific theories of liability.But Judge Pryor said the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation ofwhat Judge Pryor called an "ambiguous" verdict, finding that thejury had not been asked to decide brand-specific defects, was afactual determination to which the Eleventh Circuit must defer.Whether the Florida court used the wrong label for its decision --claim preclusion -- "is no concern of ours," Judge Pryor wrote.

Judge Pryor closed with a somewhat cryptic paragraph drawing onvarious sources, including court rulings and Williams' 1947recording for the notion that the risks of tobacco had long beenwell known. Whether his point was that smokers' suits lackedmerit, that tobacco companies had long ago prepared to shoulderthe financial burden of litigation, or both, was unclear.

"[J]uries often either discounted or rejected the claims ofsmokers who sought to hold tobacco companies liable for the well-known harms to their health caused by smoking," wrote Judge Pryor."But a 'wave of suits, brought by resourceful attorneysrepresenting vast claimant pools' . . . continued. We cannot saythat the procedures, however novel, adopted by the Supreme Courtof Florida to manage thousands of these suits under Florida lawviolated the federal right of R.J. Reynolds to due process oflaw."

Mr. Lantinberg, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said that under theEleventh Circuit's opinion, the tobacco companies can no longerargue verdicts against them are improper on due process grounds.The cases will be tried, and the defendants will continue to raisethe usual objections and appellate arguments, said Mr. Lantinberg."But," he said, "they can't argue as a whole that these tobaccolawsuits shouldn't go forward." Mr. Lantinberg suggested theruling opened the door for cases to be tried in groups -- not asclass actions -- so that the thousands of Florida cases could beresolved more quickly.

The Plaintiffs have argued that approximately 63 of the Arizonatechnicians have opted into the FLSA collective action. Therefore,based on the size of the putative class, the Plaintiffs contendthat numerosity will be satisfied, given that generally a proposedclass will satisfy the numerosity requirement if it has 40 or moremembers.

The Court agreed with Plaintiffs saying that although a court may"strike class allegations prior to discovery if the complaintdemonstrates that a class action cannot be maintained," theDefendants have not demonstrated that a class action cannot bemaintained due to a lack of numerosity.

"At this time, even though the Court need not rule that numerosityis satisfied, Plaintiffs have established that their classallegations should not be struck due to Defendants' argument thatPlaintiffs lack numerosity," ruled Judge McNamee.

SCHWEBEL BAKING: Recalls Golden Rich Buns With Honey----------------------------------------------------Schwebel Baking Company recalled 18,979 units of Golden Rich Bunswith Honey due to mislabeling and undeclared egg. Through thepackage validation process the problem was discovered. TheseSchwebel's Golden Rich Buns with Honey contain egg that is notdeclared on the product label. People who have allergies to eggrun the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if theyconsume products containing this ingredient. Pictures of theProducts are available at:

The recalled units were distributed to retail outlets andrestaurants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New York, WestVirginia, and Michigan between Sept. 9, 2013 and Sept. 10, 2013.No other products are involved.

The mislabeled product can be identified as follows:

-- Golden Rich Buns 18oz. with Best By Sept 21; and

-- Golden Rich Buns 18oz. with Best By Sept 20.

The company has received no reports of adverse reactions orillnesses due to the consumption of this product.

The Food and Drug Administration has been notified of thisvoluntary recall.

Schwebel Baking Company is committed to producing safe, qualityfood products that customers can enjoy every day at home or inrestaurants. Customers may return affected product to theretailer where it was purchased for full refund or call SchwebelBaking Company 24 hour Customer Service line at 1-800-860-2867.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Societe cooperativeagricole de l'Ile-aux-Grues are warning the public not to consumethe Le Canotier de l'Isle cheese because the product may becontaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Also affected by this alert is the above product which may havebeen sold in smaller packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers.Consumers are advised to contact the retailer to determine if theyhave the affected product.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with theconsumption of this product.

The manufacturer, Societe cooperative agricole de l'Ile-aux-Grues,L'Ile-aux-Grues, Quebec, is voluntarily recalling the affectedproduct from the marketplace. The CFIA is monitoring theeffectiveness of the recall.

ST-ALPHONSE COLLEGE: 17 Men to Testify in Court in Abuse Suit-------------------------------------------------------------CBC News reports that seventeen men who claim they were sexuallyabused when they were boys at a seminary near Quebec City areexpected to testify in court as part of a lawsuit against priests.

Court proceedings began on Sept. 9 at the Quebec City courthousefor the largest sex abuse class-action lawsuit ever launched inQuebec. Fifty alleged victims are seeking $100,000 each indamages, plus interest.

Though there have been other civil lawsuits against Quebec priestsand religious institutions, this class-action lawsuit is the firstto make it to court and be heard by a Quebec judge. All of theothers were settled out of court.

The day's proceedings started with a visit to the St-AlphonseSeminary in Ste-Anne-de-Beaupre, just outside the provincialcapital. The judge, the lawyers and the person who launched thelawsuit, Frank Tremblay, visited the site where a number of boyswere allegedly assaulted by the seminary's priests in the 1960s,'70s and '80s. The visit was followed in court by the testimonyof Raymond-Marie Mr. Lavoie, the only priest to have beensuccessfully pursued in criminal court.

Lavoie is currently serving a three-year sentence after pleadingguilty in July 2011 to assaulting 13 boys during the era hesupervised the seminary's dormitory.

Another of the St-Alphonse priests, Jean-Claude Bergeron, wasarrested at the same time as Mr. Lavoie and pleaded guilty tomolesting three boys. He hasn't been sentenced yet.

The others named in the lawsuit are Guy Pilote, Fran‡ois Plourde,Xiste Langevin, Herve Blanchette, Alexis Trepanier, Leon Roy andLucien de Blois. Many of them are dead.

Affected products: Oysters 100 count with Harvest Zone: V:20Katama Bay, Massachussets and with harvest dates from August 1,2013 to September 9, 2013.

TEXAS: Judge Certifies Foster Care System Class Action------------------------------------------------------In an article by State Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, guestcolumnist at WacoTrib.com, a federal judge has certified a classaction lawsuit against the state's foster care system, once againcasting state policy on at-risk children in an unflattering light.Texas has a poor track record when it comes to winning such casesin the courtroom, but there's an opportunity here to come out ontop in another way.

In her Aug. 27 ruling, U.S. Judge Janis Jack, of Corpus Christi,granted class action status to a lawsuit that claims abused andneglected children are being harmed by the very system designed toprotect them.

In a written statement provided to the Houston Chronicle, theplaintiffs' attorneys said they will prove that "the state failsto monitor children's safety, putting them in understaffed grouphomes and unlicensed homes of relatives who are not given the sametraining or support as foster parents or inappropriately placingthem in congregate care when they could be properly served in amore familylike setting. . . . These deficiencies lead to damagingconsequences, including high rates of maltreatment, frequent andrepeated moves between placements, and unnecessary separation ofchildren from their siblings and communities."

Jack blamed much of the problem on overburdened caseworkers at theTexas Department of Family and Protective Services, whom shecalled " these children's fire alarms."

High caseloads and the job pressures they bring are behind thesoaring staff turnover rate at DFPS -- more than 24 percent infiscal 2012.

"There is ample evidence that caseworkers are overburdened, thatthis might pose risks to the children . . . and that . . . stateofficials had actual or constructive knowledge of these risks andhave not acted to cap or otherwise limit caseloads," the judgesaid in her ruling.

With Jack's decision, attorneys for the 12,000 Texas children inpermanent foster care have won the right to present their case incourt. In the meantime, the state agency responsible for thesekids should begin implementing solutions immediately.

Fortunately, some solutions already have been identified. Thisyear, the Legislature passed a budget offering significantadditional funding for child protection and abuse preventionprograms overseen by DFPS.

Mr. Uresti said "I helped pass a new law requiring specialtraining for Child Protective Services employees who are hired foror promoted to supervisory positions. The goal is to ensure thatsupervisors are well-equipped before they begin their newresponsibilities, which in turn will help reduce the agency'sstaff turnover rate."

"I also established a pilot program in Bexar County that willprovide specialized training to foster parents of children withsevere mental health needs or those who have experienced extremetrauma.

"But new money and programs won't solve all of the problems. Weneed activism from outside the government from dedicated childadvocates in groups like the Blue Ribbon Task Force, United Way,TexProtects, the Center for Public Policy Priorities, Any Baby Canand many others.

"There must also be a change in the culture at DFPS thatencourages caseworkers to stay on the job. Fortunately, the twopeople most responsible for the agency are up to the task.

"Dr. Kyle Janek, executive commissioner of the Health and HumanServices Commission, and DFPS Commissioner John Specia Jr. caredeeply about children in foster care. I have worked with both menon these issues, and I know they are committed to this goal.

"Too often in the past -- in lawsuits challenging the state'sprison system, school finance system and mental health system --the state chose not to act until it had a legal ruling pointed atits head. Working together with Janek and Specia, we can get infront of the court this time and keep foster children out ofharm's way."

TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 880K SUVs, Lexus Sedans Over Safety Issues----------------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that Toyota is recalling 880,584 RAV4SUVs and Lexus HS 250h sedans in the U.S. and Canada because arepair announced last year may not have solved a safety problem.

RAV4s from the 2006 through 2011 model years and the Lexus HS250hfrom the 2010 model year are involved in the recall.

Toyota says if rear suspension nuts aren't tightened properlyafter a wheel alignment, the rear lower suspension arm can rustand separate from the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.

At least nine crashes and three injuries related to the problemhave been reported, according to the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration. At least 131 owners have complained aboutthe issue to NHTSA and Toyota.

Toyota recalled the vehicles last August for the same issue, butspokeswoman Cindy Knight said the repair procedure in the previousrecall was incorrect. Ms. Knight didn't know if Toyota sent outthe wrong instructions or if technicians at its dealerships didn'tfollow the correct procedures. She said technicians are receivingadditional training.

Toyota is recalling 780,584 vehicles in the U.S. and 100,000 inCanada. Owners will be notified over a six-month period startingthis month.

Toyota technicians will inspect the vehicles and replacesuspension arms which are loose or rusted for free.

Affected products: Hammock-style bassinets for children importedby the company Tresart Cache

The recall involves hammock-style bassinets for children made byartisans in Equador. The head and foot of the bassinet and thesleeping surface are made of white fabric. The sides of thecradle are made of white netting attached to a wooden tie. Thecradle is hung from cables located in the four corners of the bed.Pictures of the recalled products are available at:http://is.gd/f6MThj

Health Canada has determined that the recalled bassinets do notmeet certain labeling, construction and performance requirementsof the Cribs, Cradles and Bassinets Regulations of the CanadaConsumer Product Safety Act.

Neither Tresart Cache nor Health Canada has received reports ofincidents or injuries related to the use of these products.

In Canada, 37 recalled products were sold.

The recalled products were manufactured in Ecuador and soldbetween March 2013 and August 2013.

Companies:

Importer Tresart Cache Terrebone Quebec Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products andreturn them to the point of purchase.

According to Judge Barbier, all factors weigh against staying theMay 21, 2013 Order. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that LDHHhas not made a strong showing of likely success on appeal.

The May 21, 2013 Order directed LDHH to, among other things, makeprovisions for the numerous Board Certified Behavior Analysts whospecialize in Applied Behavior Analysis therapy to enroll asindependent Medicaid providers, to submit claims for theirservices, and to be listed as a resource for class members in allresources informing Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, andTreatment recipients of services governed by orders in the case.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Order and Reasonsis available at http://is.gd/VVcKd7from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs April Beck, Gayle Hatfield, Michelle Marlow, TonyaSmith, Michelle White, and Chester Jackson are appointed as therepresentatives for the class and the law firms of Maduff &Maduff, LLC, Touhy, Touhy & Buehler, LLP, and DiTommaso-Lubin,P.C. are appointed as counsel for the class.

A final fairness hearing will be held on November 25, 2013, at9:00 a.m. before Chief Judge David R. Herndon, at which time theCourt will consider whether the proposed class settlement shouldbe given final approval.

The Court directed the Lead Class Counsel to file a motion toapprove the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, a Motion toConsolidate the lawsuits into Michelle White v. VNA HomeCare,Inc., No. 3:11-cv-00971-DRH-PMF, and a Motion for Leave to File aSecond Amended Complaint in Michelle White v. VNA HomeCare, Inc.,No. 3:11-cv-00971-DRH-PMF, seven days before the Fairness Hearing.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 preliminary orderis available at http://is.gd/pGjxUrfrom Leagle.com.

Antonio and Joan Barbosa brought this try title action againstWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee for Soundview Home Loan TrustSeries 2007-OPT1, under Mass. Gen. L. c. 240, Section 1. WellsFargo removed the action to the Massachusetts District Court andthe Barbosas have moved to remand the case to the MassachusettsLand Court. Wells Fargo has moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Casper denied the Barbosas' motion to remand, saying theBarbosas still have an equity of redemption and there is noadverse claim. The Court granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismisswithout prejudice but denied Wells Fargo's request for costs.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Memorandum andOrder is available at http://is.gd/PRIS02from Leagle.com.

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sued in Canada Over Defective Kenmore Dishwashers-----------------------------------------------------------------Klein Lyons disclosed that a class action was filed on Sept. 10 inthe Supreme Court of British Columbia by Natalie Bickert againstWhirlpool and related companies. The lawsuit has been brought onbehalf of Canadian consumers who purchased Whirlpool, KitchenAideand Kenmore branded dishwashers. The lawsuit alleges that thedishwashers are dangerously defective. Specifically, theelectronic control board on the dishwashers may overheat, causinga fire.

"I am lucky to be alive", says Ms. Bickert. On December 11, 2012,Ms. Bickert's dishwasher ignited, filing her house with smoke.Ms. Bickert suffered carbon monoxide poisoning and she was rushedto hospital. There was damage to her home, but she had survived.

"It was a terrifying experience", says Ms. Bickert, "I had no ideathat my dishwasher was a fire hazard. After the blaze, I startedresearching this product on the internet, and I found out thatmany other people across North America have had the same problem.This makes me angry. The company should recall or repair thedishwashers, and they should warn consumers. I don't want anyoneelse in Canada to be hurt or maybe even killed by this product."

"We believe that this lawsuit raises important public safetyissues", explains Rick Mallett, one of Ms. Bickert's lawyers."Thousands of Canadians have these dishwashers in their homes. Weare seeking a court order forcing the manufacturers to recall orrepair the dishwashers, to warn consumers, and to refund them."

About Klein Lyons

For over 20 years, Klein Lyons -- http://www.kleinlyons.com-- has been helping car accident victims and class-action clientsacross Canada. If you have been injured by no fault of your own,Klein Lyons offers dedicated expertise in motor vehicle accidents,personal injury and class action law.

XCEL ENERGY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Comer" Suit------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed thedismissal of a suit alleging Xcel Energy Inc.'s CO2 emissionsintensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased thedamage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property,according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June30, 2013.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit wasdismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit fileda second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical andcoal companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi.

The complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified thestrength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffspurportedly sustained to their property. Plaintiffs base theirclaims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.

Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc.,SPS, PSCo, NSP-Wisconsin and NSP-Minnesota. The amount of damagesclaimed by plaintiffs is unknown. The defendants believe thislawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss thelawsuit.

In March 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion fordismissal. In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision tothe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In May 2013, theFifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of thislawsuit.

It is uncertain whether plaintiffs will seek further review ofthis decision. Although Xcel Energy believes the likelihood ofloss is remote based upon existing case law, it is not possible toestimate the amount or range of reasonably possible loss in theevent of an adverse outcome of this matter. No accrual has beenrecorded for this matter.

The battery pack bears a counterfeit UL certification mark for theUnited States and the battery charger bears a UL certificationmark for the United States and Canada. Neither the battery packnor the battery charger comply with UL's safety requirements andmay pose a fire or shock hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents orinjuries related to the use of these battery packs and batterychargers. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:http://is.gd/9knEPx

The number of units sold is unknown. The product was known to besold at http://www.pitsco.com/store/and may have been sold at other locations.

The recalled product was manufactured in China and the time periodsold is unknown.

Consumers should stop using the affected battery packs and batterychargers immediately.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the food industry context,where one of the hottest trends is the filing of class actionsagainst manufacturers of food products on behalf of consumerclasses claiming to have been deceived by product labeling.

For example, plaintiffs are challenging the labeling of snackcrackers as "wholesome" or "healthy," and juice and water drinksas "natural." In the last two years alone, reported decisionsreveal a wide variety of claims filed against an array of productsand manufacturers:

Cereal. Consumers alleged that Puffins brand cereal and snackproducts were "unnatural" because they contained geneticallymodified corn.

Cookies. Consumers alleged that several cookies (as well asbiscuits and crescent rolls) sold by Trader Joe's were not allnatural, as labeled, because they contained synthetic or non-natural ingredients.

Juice Beverages. Consumers alleged that Naked and Jamba Juicebeverages were not all-natural because they contained syntheticingredients and, in the case of Naked products, containedgenetically modified organisms.

Several lawsuits in this vein assert that a "natural" claim onproduct packaging or labeling is deceptive because the productcontains ingredients from plants grown from genetically modifiedorganisms ("GMOs"). Among the products challenged have beencereal, snack chips, juice beverages, and cooking oil.

GMOs are plants that grow from seeds in which DNA splicing hasbeen used to place genes from another source into the plant. Theplaintiffs in these lawsuits typically allege that GMOs pose apotential threat to consumers because medical research andscientific studies ostensibly have yet to determine the long-termhealth effects of genetically engineered foods. Many of thecomplaints provide various purported examples of potential healththreats based on studies or research conducted outside of theUnited States.

The non-profit organizations and individual plaintiffs bringingthese claims are attempting, through the device of a class actionlawsuit and the accompanying monetary and injunctive exposure tothe company whose packaging and labeling is being challenged, toadvance their conception of what the rules ought to be for theAmerican food industry.

Plaintiffs bringing these cases have sued under such variedtheories as: (a) violation of a state consumer protection ordeceptive trade practices statute; (b) unjust enrichment; (c)negligent misrepresentation; (d) intentional misrepresentation;(e) fraudulent concealment; (f) breach of implied warranty offitness for a particular purpose; (g) breach of express warranty;and (h) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Many foodproduct labeling claims are disposed of on motions to dismiss.However, state law consumer protection claims frequently survivemotions directed to the face of the pleadings. That of coursebrings these cases to a critical point, which is the focus of thisarticle:

Is the class action device the right and proper vehicle for GMOclaims to play out? Can a class be certified? And should the rulesfor what disclosures are required effectively be established inthe courts through the vehicle of class actions, with theattendant effects they have on companies who must balance risk andexpense, rather than through the regulatory process?

As of the time of this writing, only a few food product labelingcases have advanced to the class certification stage, and none ofthem are GMO cases. This article explores how GMO cases inparticular might fare on a motion for class certification. Basedon the purpose and intent of the class action procedural device asapplied to these kinds of cases, we conclude that, in general,GMO/natural cases are not well suited for class treatment, andthat the class action device is not the proper vehicle for airingthese issues. We therefore believe there are ample reasons forcourts applying Rule 23 to refuse to certify these kinds of cases.GMOs in Food Products

Genetic modification is a technique for plant breeding thatselectively identifies and reinforces particular plant traits.Also known as "bioengineering," it is a method that the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration has, for decades, approved as a safe andeffective means of crop production. As the FDA's 1992 Statementof Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties explains, the"FDA believes that the[se] new techniques [for geneticallymodifying plants] are extensions at the molecular level oftraditional methods and will be used to achieve the same goals aspursued with traditional plant breeding.

The agency is not aware of any information showing that foodsderived by these new methods differ from other foods in anymeaningful or uniform way, or that as a class, foods developed bythese new techniques present any different or greater safetyconcern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding." TheFDA has on several occasions reaffirmed its policy that forpurposes of food labeling, there is no material difference betweencrops grown using bioengineered seeds and those grown using moretraditional cross-breeding methods. Indeed, it explained thatbecause bioengineering techniques are "more precise [thantraditional plant breeding methods,] they increase the potentialfor safe, better-characterized, and more predictable foods."

Accordingly, the USDA and FDA have allowed bioengineered foods tobecome the overwhelming bulk of corn and soy crops grown in thiscountry. As the FDA has explained, "Most, if not all, cultivatedfood crops have been genetically modified." USDA statistics showthat 88% of corn and 93% of soy acreage were bioengineered in2012. Thus, only food certified as organic is required to begrown from non-bioengineered seed and segregated from non-organiccrops to minimize pollination from bioengineered crops.

Most recently, President Obama signed into law section 735 of H.R.933, the so-called "Farmer Assurance Provision," which, asreported, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporaryderegulation status to allow growers to continue cultivatingbioengineered products that were previously approved while legalchallenges to the approval process proceed.

Plaintiffs in the GMO lawsuits contend that bioengineered food isnot "natural" as advertised. In 1993, the FDA noted that it hadreceived a wide range of ideas for it to consider in developing adefinition for "natural." Because of "resource limitations andother agency priorities," the FDA, however, refused to establish arule defining the term "natural." At the same time, the agencystated that it intends "to maintain its current policy . . . notto restrict the use of the term 'natural' except for added color,synthetic substances, and flavors."

Additionally, it stated that it "will maintain its policy . . .regarding the use of 'natural,' as meaning that nothing artificialor synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source)has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would notnormally be expected to be in the food." Thus, in effect, despiteits refusal to issue a rule, the FDA has made a policydetermination that the term "natural" should be restricted only ina very limited fashion.

Notably, the GMO plaintiffs do not allege that food productscontaining GMOs contain artificial or synthetic substances,flavors, or color additives. Rather, their claim is that thepresence of GMOs itself makes the products non-natural, and thatunder state consumer protection statutes, marketing such productsas "natural" is contrary to the reasonable customer's expectationas to the meaning of that term. Yet given FDA pronouncements, amanufacturer of GMO products certainly should argue that the FDAeffectively has created the only generally accepted meaning of theterm "natural," which is the FDA's definition that "nothingartificial or synthetic . . . has been included in, or has beenadded to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in thefood."

When viewed in light of the regulatory backdrop outlined above,the question becomes whether a class should be certified basedupon a GMO plaintiff's subjective opinion (if the plaintiff has anopinion at all) that the challenged products are not "natural" andshould not be so labeled because they are made from the nation'sroutinely grown and consumed bioengineered crops.Class Certification in GMO/Natural Cases

Although none of them to-date involves a challenge to GMOs inproducts labeled as "natural," the rationale in the decisions thathave issued should illuminate how courts might treat classcertification of these types of claims.

In addition, the unique regulatory framework of GMOs in foodproducts bears on the certification analysis. We see thefollowing trends flowing from the case law and the regulatoryframework.

Most courts addressing proposed national classes reject theargument advanced by plaintiffs that the law of a singlejurisdiction can apply to all class members' claims. Pursuant tochoice of law principles, these courts typically hold that the lawof the state in which each class member is a resident will applyto that class member's claims. This fact usually dooms a findingof predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).25 In food labeling cases,several courts have applied these principles to strike allegationsor deny certification of a nationwide class.

One California district judge has bucked this trend and certifieda national class of consumers who purchased liquid dietarysupplements, applying California law to all class members' claims.In its initial decision, the court explained that it felt free toapply California law to all class members' claims because it wasthe defendants' burden to show that there were materialdifferences between California consumer protection laws and theconsumer protection laws of other states rather than, as othercourts had done, the plaintiff's burden to show the absence ofsuch differences. The court found that defendants' reliance onstatements in other cases indicating material differences amongstate laws was insufficient because the defendants had the burdenof showing an actual conflict "on the facts of this case."

After the Ninth Circuit vacated a nationwide class in Mazza v. Am.Honda Motor Co.,29 the defendant moved for reconsideration. Thecourt refused to reconsider its prior decision, reasoning that"Defendants' briefing in the prior motion differs from that of thedefendants in Mazza." The court's shifting of the burden ofdemonstrating that California law differs from that of otherstates is contrary to the prevailing standard on classcertification. This decision is a wrongly-decided outlier.

Many plaintiffs readily understand the difficulties of certifyinga national class in a food products case and, therefore, limittheir proposed classes to residents of the forum state. Even insuch a context, however, if the challenged labeling was notuniformly made across all challenged products or over the entireclass period, certification of a statewide class should be denied.

Red v. Kraft Foods30 is illustrative. There, the plaintiffsalleged that certain claims made by Kraft on its cracker productsregarding their healthfulness -- for example, that they were"wholesome," that they support 'kids' growth and development," andthat they were smart choices" -- were deceptive because theproducts contained trans fats. Plaintiffs sought to certify aclass under several California state consumer protection statutes.

The court held, however, that the class was not adequately definedand was overbroad because, for large parts of the class period,most of the challenged statements did not appear on any packagingor advertisements. Moreover, even when they did appear, they wereused in only some versions of that particular snack.

Although the plaintiffs sought to redefine the class to excludesome of the challenged products, the court ruled that it was stilltoo broad to the extent that it necessarily included customersthat were not exposed to allegedly misleading statements. Inaddition, the court held that the plaintiffs failed the Rule23(a)(2) commonality requirement because the proposed classconsisted of millions of consumers who purchased differentproducts bearing different labels over the span of a decade.31

C. Inability to Show Injury and Loss May Cause Class to FailTypicality, Adequacy, Predominance

In some jurisdictions, food labeling classes cannot be certifiedbecause the plaintiff cannot uniformly show that all class memberssuffered injury or loss. For example, if the named plaintiff didnot pay a premium for the product, he or she may fail to establishthe Rule 23(a) requirements of typicality and adequacy.

In addition, though individual damages calculations will notnecessarily defeat class certification, this depends on thecalculations being straightforward such that they can be performedby a common methodology applicable to each class member.Particularly in consumer transactions where there often are norecords reflecting individual consumer purchases, damages may wellbe individualized. The price paid by each consumer may vary fromstore to store, from customer to customer (as a result of coupons,loyalty programs, and other promotions), or according to when thepurchase was made. Where each putative class member paid adifferent amount and bought different quantities on numerousoccasions over a period of time, the individual inquiriesnecessary to compute individual damages may well predominate overany possible common questions relating to liability.

D. An Inference of Reliance May Not Be Appropriate in the GMOContext

Courts sometimes certify classes in non-GMO food product casesover defendants' objections that consumers had different reasonsfor purchasing the products and many of the class members did notrely on the allegedly misleading statements. This type ofargument by defendants may be rejected even if the court deniesclass certification (as occurred in Red v. Kraft). This isbecause many states, including California where many of the foodproduct cases are filed, hold that individual reliance is not arequirement of their consumer protection statutes as long as thealleged misrepresentation was material. In other words, relianceis deemed satisfied if it can be determined that a reasonableclass member would likely be deceived by the product labelingclaim. Nonetheless, as discussed above, the plaintiffs mustdemonstrate common exposure to the misrepresentation (not just theproduct) to obtain class certification.

Cases permitting a presumption or inference of reliance appear tobe predicated upon the assumption that there is a single"reasonable" class member viewpoint as to whether the allegedmisrepresentation is material. The court in Guido, for example,called the presumption an "objective" standard.35

The issue of reasonable reliance in the GMO context appears to befundamentally different. Given the regulatory framework discussedabove, it is evident that there is no common consumerunderstanding of what "natural" means, and accordingly nopresumption of reliance is warranted. In fact, products developedfrom bioengineered crops are indeed "natural" in any reasonablemeaning of that term because a very high percentage of many U.S.crops, including soy and corn, are produced using GMOs.

The FDA has considered, but chosen not to adopt, labelingstandards for "natural" products or products using GMOs. The FDAapparently has prohibited the use only of the term "organic" whenGMOs are involved, but this involves a very different issue fromwhether they are "natural."

While the FDA has chosen not to adopt mandatory labelingrequirements, it issued a "guidance" for producers who voluntarilychoose to include information about bioengineered crops orproducts in their product information. In its Guidance forIndustry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have Or HaveNot Been Developed Using Bioengineering," issued January 2001 (nothaving the force of a regulation), the FDA noted that "Dataindicate that consumers do not have a good understanding thatessentially all food crops have been genetically modified and thatbioengineering technology is only one of a number of technologiesused to genetically modify crops."

In other words, the FDA considered whether to adopt mandatoryregulations for the use of "natural" in labeling foods containingGMOs, and did not do so, choosing instead only to issue non-binding guidance for companies who elected to include informationabout GMOs in their product. As noted, the FDA instead has issueda limited "policy" defining natural as "meaning that nothingartificial or synthetic (including color additives . . .) has beenincluded. . . . " which does not reach bioengineered crops.

In this context, a food manufacturer has strong substantivearguments that the FDA pronouncements militate in favor ofjudgment against the plaintiff because the plaintiff cannot show -- in the face of the FDA policy -- that the label of the productis deceptive or misleading. Beyond this, or perhaps, in light ofit, for class certification purposes, the defendant also shouldargue that there is no single "reasonable" consumer understandingthat products containing GMOs are not "natural."

Indeed, as the FDA commentary establishes, there simply is nocommon understanding among consumers of what GMOs are, whatbioengineered crops are, or what "natural" means in that specificcontext. This suggests that it is not possible to establish thatthe defendants' labels are misleading or deceptive across a broadclass of consumers whose common characteristic merely is that theybought the defendants' products.

Relatedly, even setting aside the issue of reliance, the issuesconcerning the lack of a clear meaning of "natural" in the contextof bioengineered food ingredients may well implicate the thresholdissue of whether the statements appearing on the product packagesare "deceptive" as to each class member in the first place.

Wide variations almost certainly exist among purchasers as to whatthey think (if anything) "natural" means in the GMO context. Thispresents both substantive (whether the package was deceptive forthat consumer), and class issues (varying, or no, individualperceptions of "natural" in this context among class members).

Many of these arguments were previewed -- and not adjudicated --in Silber v. Barbara's Bakery,36 where the plaintiffs sought apreliminary injunction against a cereal manufacturer's labelingpractices. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's Puffinscereal products were deceptively labeled when the packaging toutedthe product as "all natural" and "100% Natural" when it containedcorn grown from genetically modified seed. In favor of theirlikelihood of success on the merits, the plaintiffs argued thatthe term "natural" had been partially defined by the FDA in its1993 pronouncement. The defendant responded that the FDA hadplainly stated that the term "natural" has no defined meaning.

The plaintiffs also contended that consumers expect "natural" foodto be free of genetically engineered ingredients, citing a HartmanGroup study and anecdotal evidence of consumer indignation. Theyalso asserted that products derived from GMOs are unnatural bydefinition. The court refused to grant the preliminary injunctionbecause the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate irreparable harmand their claimed money damages provided an adequate legal remedy.Influencing the court's decision was a reluctance to order whatamounted to a product recall to remedy the payment of a smallpremium for the product.

The court also noted that, since 2011, efforts to require labelingof GMOs had been rejected by legislators in more than a dozenstates. It declined to "render a decision to compensatePlaintiffs for various state legislatures' failure to act." Thesame could be said of the FDA's decision not to adopt suchregulations.E. Class Action Arguably Not Superior to Other Means of ResolvingKey Issues in Novel Claim

Manufacturer defendants also should argue that GMO lawsuits arepotentially vulnerable as class actions because they improperlyseek to use the Rule 23 procedural device to have the judiciaryestablish for all consumers, in one single lawsuit, what the term"Natural" or "100% Natural" means in food products created fromcrops using GMOs when other means of doing so (or determining thatthere is no basis to do so) are superior to the class actionvehicle.

Indeed, because of the absence of any scientific evidence thatsuch crops are unsafe or otherwise materially different from foodsproduced without using such crops, the FDA has determined thatproducers of such foods need not "disclose" that they were createdfrom crops using GMOs.

Plaintiffs in this new breed of class action seek to use the classdevice to end-around the FDA's rule-making. The Silber courthinted at such rationale in refusing to grant a preliminaryinjunction to recall or require a sticker on the label of Puffinscereal. The Northern District of California was more explicit inCox v. Gruma Corp.,38when it became the first court to refer aputative GMO class action to the FDA for administrativedetermination of whether and under what circumstances foodproducts containing ingredients produced using bioengineered seedmay or may not be labeled "natural" or "all natural" or "100%natural."

The issue of what constitutes a "natural" food product in thecontext of bioengineered crops used in food products is arguably asufficiently "novel" issue that is inappropriate for classtreatment. Defendants faced with food labeling class actions candevelop strong thematic arguments that determining whether a foodproduct labeled "100% natural" is deceptive and misleading becauseit contains products grown from GMOs involves a number ofpotential complex issues. The resolution of those issues via aclass action is arguably not "superior to other available methodsfor adjudicating the controversy."39

The very issue of what "natural" means is subject to debate,including policy debate, and can have varying meanings, or noparticular meaning at all, for various consumers. Thus, theargument exists that there are other, better suited means, whichwould most obviously include regulatory means, for resolving theseclaims.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs bringing "natural" claims essentially want the courtsto do what the FDA has to-date seen as not appropriate to do: toregulate the labeling of products containing GMOs.

Indeed, with the potential exposure a class action presents,allowing these cases to go past the class certification stage inthe face of the Rule 23 problems they present could threaten todeter food manufacturers from defending them on the merits,thereby bringing about substantive labeling changes through the interrorem effect of the suits themselves rather than a carefulassessment of the underlying merits.

The GMO cases present a paradigm example where a rigorous Rule 23assessment is appropriate to ensure that square pegs are notforced into round holes as plaintiffs elect to bypass theregulatory process in favor of a more potent formula to effectchange.

* Class Action Concept in India's Companies Bill Open to Misuse---------------------------------------------------------------Amish Tandon, writing for Business Standard, reports that amongthe various new inductions in the Companies Bill, the concept of'class action' which is aimed at increasing investor protection isdefinitely pronounced. The concept of class action, whichoriginated in and is predominant in the US, is sought to beintroduced in India in the Companies Bill, in the aftermath of theSatyam corporate scandal. In the Satyam case, wherein numeroussmall investors of Satyam Group in India were unable to seekeffective relief against Satyam's management as against theircounterparts in the US who brought class action suits againstSatyam and got recompensed in the process.

A 'class action suit' in common parlance may be defined as alawsuit in which a group of shareholders of a company collectivelybring an action in court against an identified group of defendantsbelonging to the company. The Companies Bill mandates theinitiation of class actions suits by the members and depositors ofa company in case they are of the opinion that the management orconduct of the affairs of the company are being conducted in amanner prejudicial to the interests of the company or its membersor depositors. Let us briefly look at some of the salientattributes of the concept of 'class action suits' under theCompanies Bill:

(a) Under the Companies Bill, class action suits can be commencedcollectively by a minimum of 100 shareholders or depositors, or aminimum prescribed percentage of such shareholders or depositors,whichever is less.

(b) A class action suit may be brought against the company, itsdirectors, auditors or any experts, advisors and consultants fortheir inactions and wrongdoings. Hence, the Companies Billattempts to cast a wide net on the erring management of thecompany.

(c) Upon admission of a class action application, all similarapplications in any jurisdiction are required to be consolidatedinto one single application. This provision would reducemultiplicity of litigation on the same subject matter.

The features of a class action suit under the Companies Billcertainly carry benefits for investors of a company. It providesinvestors with a medium to fight as one unit against the errantcompany or management, thereby reducing multiplicity of suits,costs of ligation and increasing their chances of success in theprocess. No doubt, 'class action suits' under the Companies Billmay prove to be a potent tool to keep the accountability of acompany/management in check and to contain any likely prejudiceagainst the minority. However, on the flipside, such a conceptmay be open to misuse by unscrupulous minority shareholders infurtherance of their vested interest thereby hampering theefficacious functioning of the company.

Suffice to say that courts may need to exercise caution whilehearing and deciding class action suits in order to ensure that acompany is allowed to function effectively while keeping intactrequired minority investor protection.

* K&L, Kirkland, Littler and Morgan Lewis Are Top Defendant Firms-----------------------------------------------------------------Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that when corporate counselare confronted with potential class actions by disgruntledconsumers or investors, there are four law firms they want ontheir side, according to a new report.

K&L Gates LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Littler Mendelson LLP andMorgan Lewis & Bockius LLP are the firms that in-house counselmost want to defend them against class actions and mass torts,according to the BTI Litigation Outlook 2014 report by BTIConsulting Group Inc. (Wellesley, Mass.). The firms were named aspowerhouses based on interviews with 300 corporate counsel.

When presented with potential class actions, these four firmsroutinely call on their best and most experienced attorneys in theinitial strategy phases before taking any action, which makestheir success rate that much higher, BTI President MichaelRynowecer told Law360.

"In some firms, whoever gets the lead on a class action keeps it,whereas in top firms, whoever gets it shares it with the mostexperienced," Mr. Rynowecer said. "Not all firms take thatapproach to business development."

Mr. Rynowecer added that the powerhouses are good at listening totheir clients and being able to sort through the multiple voicesthat are involved in class actions.

And lawyers in the four firms resoundingly agreed that theirsuccess is partly due to their willingness to seriously study thesubstantive legal areas of the industries in which they litigate.

"There is no substitute for expertise in the substantive areas ofthe law and intimate familiarity with developing case law,"John Rotunno, a K&L Gates litigation practice leader, told Law360.

And in recent years, the firm has seen an increase in classactions accusing home loan servicers of failing to engage in loanmodification and debt collection efforts and alleged unfair anddeceptive practices cases, amongst other mortgage-related actions,according to R. Bruce Allensworth, a partner in the firm's Bostonoffice who was instrumental in forming what is now K&L Gates'financial institutions and services litigation practice group.

Allan King, co-chair of Littler Mendelson's class action group,told Law360 that his firm's practice has been growing at around 15percent for the last 7 or 8 years, thanks to the firm's marketposition as the nation's largest labor and employment firm and abroad team of litigators who specialize in nuanced areas, likestatistics and e-discovery.

King said that when he became co-chair about 10 years ago, LittlerMendelson handled a heavy mix of discrimination cases. Now, thefirm's class action workload is about 40 percent federal FairLabor Standards Act cases, 40 percent California labor code casesand the remainder discrimination and Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act matters, he said.

Kirkland & Ellis, which BTI's 2014 report named as one of the fourmost feared litigation firms, was also ranked as a class actionpowerhouse in last year's BTI survey. About 250 Kirkland attorneysare involved in class actions on a regular basis, according tosenior litigation partner Jay Lefkowitz.

"Our clients understandably view litigation as a major distractionand a means of last resort. Therefore, we try to use our skillsas trial lawyers to discourage potential litigants from bringingactions against our clients," Mr. Lefkowitz told Law360. "Wherethat is not achievable, the next best outcome is reach a quick,cost-effective resolution of any action, whether through motionpractice or negotiation, or if necessary, trial."

This aggressive stance has paid dividends for the firm, which hassuccessfully defended 24 Hour Fitness, AOL, Hertz Corp., CignaCorp., DirecTV Inc., The Dow Chemical Corp. and other majorcorporations in an array of class actions in recent years.

"It's very hard for companies to avoid being the target of alawsuit, particularly those that may be frivolous, and so theymust react strongly and swiftly, particularly if they're in anindustry where they can be subject to repetitive actions,"Mr. Lefkowitz added. "They must demonstrate that they're willingto take on plaintiffs in a rigorous manner."

For Morgan Lewis, its success in the class action realm isattributable in part to its belief that class actions are muchmore than mere legal issues, J. Gordon Cooney, managing partner ofMorgan Lewis' Philadelphia office told Law360.

"A class action nearly always challenges some aspect of yourclient's business and you need to be thinking about the businessimpact, not just the litigation," he said.

Some of the broader issues that must be considered are shareholderissues, customer issues, media coverage and governmentinvestigations, according to Cooney.

"We can handle many, if not all of those areas, and if a clienthires other counsel, we've also been very successful in workingwith the client and other firms to help develop a strategy toaddress the business problem that the client might have," firmlitigation partner Joseph Duffy added.

Additionally, 41 other firms made BTI's "honor roll" for classactions and torts.

* Law Firms Wrangling With Insurance Carriers Over Sandy Coverage-----------------------------------------------------------------Christine Simmons, writing for New York Journal, reports thatnearly a year after Hurricane Sandy, law firms are still wranglingwith insurance carriers over denied coverage for loss of business.

Several firms have turned to litigation against insurers thatdenied their business interruption claims, among them,Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer; Mintz & Gold; Bamundo, Zwal &Schermerhorn; Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris; and ShapiroBeilly & Aronowitz, almost all of them located in downtownManhattan.

Generally, the law firms claim they suffered business losses whenthey had no access to their building or lost power andcommunications in their office. Some firms said insurers deniedtheir claims on the basis that power failure resulted fromflooding on Con Ed's property. Many corporate entities arepursuing similar suits in New York's state and federal courts.

Meanwhile, some firms are sticking with negotiations.

William McKitty, managing director at insurance broker AON, saidthe broker has five large firm clients, with more than 150attorneys each, with claims involving business interruption. Somehave settled while others are in the process of doing so, he said.

Robert Juceam -- robert.juceam@friedfrank.com -- of counsel atFried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, said he has consultedthree midsized firms on their business interruption claims.

Fried Frank is in the process of resolving its own businessinterruption claim, without difficulty, Mr. Juceam said. Thefirm, which had to take temporary space on Park Avenue afterSandy, moved back to its office in late November at One New YorkPlaza.

Lester Schwab, a 55-attorney litigation firm at 120 Broadway, saidit suffered significant business losses and extra expenses afterit lost some utility service and could not access its office afterthe Oct. 29 storm.

The firm, which is alleging $490,000 in damages, said GreatNorthern Insurance Co., a Chubb subsidiary, denied coverage on thebasis that the loss of power "was caused by flood damage to theutility's property."

But Lester Schwab is arguing that an explosion caused loss ofutilities. Coverage is also provided under the policy's floodendorsement, the firm said in Lester Schwab v. Great Northern,652708/2013, in Manhattan Supreme Court.

"There are coverage implications if there was an explosion or notan explosion under certain policies," said Stuart Cotton --scotton@moundcotton.com -- an attorney who defends insurers andwho is not involved in the case.

"Generally, insurance companies do not pay for businessinterruption from any cause whatsoever. Their policies are quitespecific about what has to happen to trigger that coverage," saidCotton, who is senior counsel at Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass.

Con Edison said in a report in January 2013 that low voltageequipment tied to a single East 13th Street substation transformerfailed due to exposure to salt water.

"The failure caused a dramatic arcing fault which to many lookedand sounded like an explosion," the Con Edison report said, notingthat a widely-watched video on YouTube captured the event. "Manypeople have associated the arc fault with the loss of electricservice to Manhattan. However, the loss of one out of eighttransformers supplying the East 13th Street substation did notcause the station shutdown."

Con Edison has said that outages after Sandy in Manhattan "werecaused by flooding," except for specific buildings and networksthat were preemptively shut down.

Insurers are relying on the Con Edison report to disclaimcoverage, said Lester Schwab's counsel, Johnathan Lerner, apartner at Lerner Arnold & Winston. He is arguing the incidentwas an explosion which caused the power outage. "Con Ed isprotecting itself against what could be massive subrogationclaims," Mr. Lerner said.

Access to Office

In another suit against Great Northern, 16-attorney Newman Myerssaid it suffered business losses after it couldn't access itsoffice until Nov. 5, due to the loss of heat. The firm'scomplaint in Newman Myers v. Great Northern, 1:13-cv-02177, wasfiled in the Southern District.

Among its affirmative defenses, Great Northern said the firm'soffice was not located in Evacuation Zone A, which was a mandatoryevacuation area, and "no prohibition of access to the premises bya civil authority or by any occurrence covered under the policyprevented ingress to the Premise."

Jared Zola -- zolaj@dicksteinshapiro.com -- a Dickstein Shapiropartner who represents policyholders and who is not involved inthe suit, said a key question in such litigation is what is acivil authority.

"If the mandatory evacuation only covered Zone A, and a law firmwas one block north of Zone A, but police officers are notpermitting you or your employees to enter the premises, thepolicyholder may have a strong argument there is still civilauthority coverage," Mr. Zola said.

A spokeswoman for Chubb declined to comment on the Lester Schwaband Newman Myers suits.

Mintz & Gold is suing CNA, which found the firm's policy did notcover "off premises power failure." The firm is alleging breachof contract and deceptive business practices and demandingunspecified damages and punitive damages for denial of itsbusiness interruption claim, Mintz & Gold v. CNA, 157221/2013.The 23-attorney firm claims it was physically prevented fromretrieving its server.

Mintz & Gold claims that at mediation in June, CNA representativessaid they had neither authority nor intention to settle. In aninterview in August, Steven Gold, a founding partner, said thefirm had more than $100,000 in losses.

"Pretending to participate in the mediation is offensive," hesaid. "It was a big waste of my time. I went out of therefuming."

Jennifer Martinez-Roth, a CNA representative, declined to comment.

There are at least two other law firm suits in Manhattan SupremeCourt. Shapiro Beilly & Aronowitz, a six-attorney firm at 225Broadway, said it suffered loss of business income and extraexpenses totaling about $73,000. The firm's suit against NationalFire Insurance Company of Hartford, a CNA company, Shapiro v.National Fire, 650037/2013, said it has coverage for lossesresulting from a breakdown to equipment that is owned orcontrolled by a utility.

Edward Pinter -- empinter@fmew.com -- a partner at Ford MarrinEsposito Witmeyer & Gleser, who is representing National Fire,declined to comment. The company in a statement in January said,"National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford . . . at all timesacted professionally and in good faith in the handling of Shapiro,Beilly & Aronowitz's claim. The company denies the allegations inthe complaint and will vigorously defend the lawsuit."

The firm said its business operations "were completely interruptedand halted." The firm said it could not conduct business until itfound a temporary office on Nov. 15, and for a period of time, thefirm could not access its telephone number and litigation files.

Recovering and calculating business interruption claims may bemore complicated for law firms than other businesses, some lawyerssaid, due to factors such as multiple timekeepers, actualcollections versus hours billed, whether attorneys offereddiscounted rates and whether they were able to work remotely.

After 9/11, several large law firms and some insurers informallycompromised on how to calculate billable hours in a businessinterruption claim, Mr. Juceam said. He declined to specify theformula, saying it was not public information.

Howard Epstein, a partner with Schulte Roth & Zabel who focuses oninsurance law, said carriers will more than likely try to settleclaims of a couple hundred thousand dollars or under.

"When you get into damages of that amount, the cost of litigationis so substantial that you typically try to find common ground onwhich to settle," Mr. Epstein said.

The Maharashtra Consumer Commission admitted a petition filedagainst malls and departmental stores in the State for sellingplastic bags to consumers.

The petition, filed by 23 residents, is probably the first filedas a "Class Action Petition" in the State. A "Class ActionPetition" is akin to a Public Interest Litigation in a High Court,i.e. one filed collectively by a group of people, and involvingthe interest of "numerous consumers".

The petition, filed early last year, raises the issue that mallsand departmental stores are selling plastic bags to customers andare not passing on the money to the respective municipalcorporations, so that they can take care of "waste management costand encourage re-use so as to minimize plastic waste generation".

According to the complaint, malls/stores began selling plasticbags after the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests issuednotification in February 2011 with an aim to discourage use ofplastic bags. This notification directed the respectivecorporations to declare prices at which the stores could sellplastic bags, based on quality and size, covering the material aswell as waste management cost.

The complaint further says that the corporations have not takenany action, i.e. declaration of the process for the bags, as wellas for collection of money from the stores and putting it to use.Despite all this, the complaint alleges that malls have begunselling plastic bags even though the system is yet to be put inplace.

Representing the petitioners advocate Uday Wavikar said, "In thecomplaint we mentioned an amount of Rs 40 lakh, which is estimatedto be collected by stores from sale of plastic bags in just 20days, but we think it could be much more."

The amount was arrived at days before the petition was filed.Mr. Wavikar added that by this estimate, the amount could run intoa few crores annually.

The BMC issued a notification few days after the petition wasfiled, but Mr. Wavikar responded with an affidavit calling it aneyewash. The affidavit says that BMC's notification only declaresthe prices of various size bags, without specifying the collectionprocess and further action to be taken to enforce the MoEFnotification. "This only helps malls gain at the cost of thecustomers," the affidavit said.

According to the complaint, malls/stores earlier used to supplyplastic bags free -- meaning that the cost of the bags was alreadyfactored in the sale price. But, after the MoEF notification,they started charging for bags without reducing prices of goods.

However, in replies filed with the Commission, malls have deniedthe allegations.

According to Retailers Association of India, bags were earlierprovided free "only as a good gesture on part of stores". It alsocontends that providing "free bags" to consumers is not mandatory,and therefore not providing the free bags cannot be "deficiency inservice."

The retailers' reply also says there is no "maximum sale price"fixed for bags and it is open for stores to charge any amount,therefore they have not violated any notification. It also saysthere is a significant drop in demand for plastic bags ever sincethey were charged for.

One store, in its reply affidavit, said the allegations are made"without any study and research and therefore defamatory".

These and all other replies filed by malls/stores sought dismissalof the complaint. The Commission, however, rejected their prayerand admitted the complaint. The petition will be heard onOctober 4.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.